[Land Acquisition] Section 24 Should Be Given It's Plain And Literal Construction:Shyam Divan Tells Constitution Bench

On Tuesday, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, appearing for a farmers' association, propounded the legal propositions upheld by the Supreme Court between 2014 and February, 2018 which have held the field for so far. 'physical possession' of land means dominion and control over the land.on whether the period of stay/injunction is to be excluded for the purpose of computing the 5 years in 24, Actus curiae has no application.the 'or' in 24 is not to be read as 'and'.the vesting under the 1894 Act takes place only after the award is made and the deposit is made in compliance with 31 before possession is taken under 16. 16 envisages 100% payment, while even in the case of an emergency, 80% is expected!.finally, when the legislature has the full power to vest in you the land under 16, it also has the full power to divest you of it under the deeming provision which is 24" "No novel points have been made before Your Lordships. Next, the Senior Counsel proceeded to discuss the judgments that discussed "the infirmities in the old law, the way injustice was being done, that was finally noted by the Legislature" He relied on the March, 2011decision in Dev Sharan where this court had observed that, "Even though right to property is no longer fundamental and was never a natural right, it has to be accepted that without right to some property, other rights become illusory.This Court is of the opinion that the concept of public purpose in land acquisition has to be viewed from an angle which is consistent with the concept of a welfare State.Any attempt by the State to acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people especially of the common people defeats the very concept of public purpose." "There is nothing about payment.although possession was there earlier also, now it is qualified by two riders and the proviso", remarked Justice Mishra.