Repeal and Saving: Section 114

The Act's last section performs its founding act: the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is repealed, and the repeal is governed by the General Clauses Act's Section 6 savings, save as the 2013 Act otherwise provides, which it does, pointedly, in Section 24. One sentence of repeal, one of saving, and a decade of litigation about where the general saving ends and the special transition begins. This closing note of Part I covers the section and its doctrine.

1. The Section

• The repeal (Section 114(1)): the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby repealed, the end of the 119-year statute, effective with the Act's commencement on 1 January 2014.
• The saving (Section 114(2)): save as otherwise provided in this Act, the repeal shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeals.
• Section 6's content, recalled: unless a different intention appears, a repeal does not revive what was not in force, nor affect the repealed Act's previous operation, nor rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired or incurred under it, nor penalties for its breach, nor investigations and legal proceedings, which may continue as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

2. The General Saving and the Special Transition

The section's opening qualification, "save as otherwise provided in this Act", is where the doctrine lives. The Act does otherwise provide: Section 24 is a complete, special transitional code for pending 1894 acquisitions, and to the extent it speaks, it displaces Section 6's default of continuing everything as before. The interaction, fought through the Section 24 war and settled by the Indore Development Authority Constitution Bench, yields a clean division. Where Section 24 applies, its rules govern: no-award pipelines take 2013 compensation (24(1)(a)) although Section 6 alone would have continued the old law; stale award-possession-payment failures lapse (24(2)) although Section 6 alone would have preserved them. Where Section 24 is silent, Section 6's generality fills the space: completed acquisitions stand, vested title is untouched; accrued rights and liabilities, the earned solatium, the pending Section 18 reference, the enhancement appeal, continue and are worked out under the old Act's machinery; offences and proceedings under the 1894 regime retain their law. And the repeal revives nothing: claims dead before 2014, challenges abandoned, lapses already suffered, do not return through the new Act's generosity, the no-resurrection principle Indore made express.

3. Working the Section

• The sequence of analysis: for any 1894-era acquisition, ask Section 24's questions first (award? when? possession? payment? stays?); only what Section 24 does not govern falls to Section 6's defaults, the order of operations the courts now apply as a matter of course.
• Pending references and appeals: compensation litigation born under the old Act continues under the old Act's provisions, the reference court, not the LARR Authority, finishing what it started, with the old Act's own solatium and interest rules, subject to the special statutory upgrades (the 24(2) proviso, the 2015 Order's field) where they apply.
• Vested title: land vested under the 1894 Act remains vested, Section 114 is no ground to reopen concluded takings, though Vidya Devi-class claims for never-completed or lawless takings stand on Article 300A, outside both statutes.
• For the examiner: the one-line doctrine: Section 114 repeals; Section 6 saves; Section 24 overrides the saving to the extent it speaks, and the three sentences organise every transition question the subject can ask.

4. Related Topics and Provisions

• Section 24 (Topics 85 and 86): the special code that displaces the saving
• Evolution of the law (Topic 2): the statute buried here
• Vidya Devi (Topic 121): takings outside both Acts
• The 1894 and 2013 Acts compared (Topic 104): the full ledger of what changed