Sri Bhagwan And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2007 (O&M).

Date of Decision: November 30, 2016 Sri Bhagwan and others ......Petitioners versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA.

*** Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Nayyar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

-.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J . (Oral) There are seven petitioners in this case who have laid challenge to the acquisition of their residential houses/structures constructed on the khasra numbers fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of village Gharauli Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The said acquisition was made vide Award dated 27.01.2006. Though two co-sharers of the petitioners are said to have received compensation on 04.05.2006 but the fact of the matter is that the remaining petitioners have neither received compensation nor the compensation amount which fell to their share, was deposited with the Reference Court in accordance with Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in continuous and uninterrupted physical possession of their acquired sites. In the light of the later development, namely, the Right to Fair

CWP No.13055 of 2007 (O&M) [2] Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') having come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, the additional question which has arisen for consideration is whether the impugned acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?

Since the petitioners are in continuous possession of the acquired property for a period of five years from the date of passing of Award and before the new Act (2013 Act) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and the compensation amount has not been received by them, there can be no escape but to hold that the impugned acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

For the detailed reasons assigned in the order dated 27.10.2016 passed in CWP No.17464 of 2007 (Satnam Singh and another versus The State of Haryana and others) and connected matters, the instant writ petition is allowed and it is declared that acquisition of the petitioners' land vide Award dated 27.01.2006 is deemed to have lapsed. Having held so, we are surely of the view that since Section 24

(2) of 2013 Act itself, in so many words, contemplates the possibility of reacquisition of the land/property in respect whereof the previous acquisition has lapsed, it is necessary to direct the petitioners to maintain status quo re: creation of third party rights; to keep the land/property free from all types of incumbrances and not to change the nature of land/property for a period of one year so that meanwhile the respondent-State may, if such property is needed for a "public purpose", again acquire it. Such a direction is necessitated also for the reason that in numerous cases State or its agencies have taken possession in part and development works have been executed

CWP No.13055 of 2007 (O&M) [3] except over that land/property in litigation. Those development works ought to be completed in public interest and the only consequence of lapsing of previous acquisition, mostly due to fault of the Government Officers/ Officials, would be that the owners of such land/property will be entitled to compensation and other benefits admissible under the 2013 Act. [SURYA KANT] JUDGE November 30, 2016 [SUDIP AHLUWALIA] mohinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No