The High Court of Karnataka has appealed to the Central government to address the absence of exemption from income tax for compensation received for land acquired by authorities under various laws other than the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
“One cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the apparent hostile discrimination of persons losing land in acquisition process under statutes other than the 2013 Act,” the court observed, while referring to laudable benefits extended to land-losers under the 2013 Act, which are unavailable to land-losers under various laws enacted by the State legislature.
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, made these observations, while upholding an appeal by the Income Tax Department against an order of a single judge, who had granted exemption from income tax to some people whose land was acquired under State laws.
The exemption cannot be extended to compensation under other land acquisition laws, as the law by Parliament has specified that the exemption is available only for compensation received under the 2013 Act, the Bench made it clear.
However, the Bench observed that “it is quite obvious that there is a lot of heartburn in the class of persons who lost land under statutes other than 2013 Act” due to not only the non-availability of exemption from income tax but also due to various other higher compensation benefits made available under 2013 Act.
“The benefit of package availing under the 2013 Act are pretty attractive compared to those contemplated under State legislations. Also, the amount of compensation to land-losers is much higher [under the 2013 Act],” the Bench noted.
“... ordinarily, land-losers in acquisition process, whichever be the statute, do constitute one homogenous class, at least viewed from the angle of recompense. It is high time that the Central government addresses this aspect of the matter and assuages the grievance of land-losing farmers, consistent with the policy content and laudable intent enacted in Section 96 of the new Act. Much is not necessary to specify,” the Bench observed, while directing the registry to sent the copies of the judgement to the Ministry of Finance and the Law Commission of India.
Published - November 05, 2024 07:00 am IST
