M/S Trim India P. Ltd. v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.
Date of Decision: November 07, 2016 M/s Trim India P.Ltd .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 2.
CWP No.2925-2006 M/s S.K.T. Engineers Firm ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 3.
CWP-2268-2006 M/s Reiko Auto Industries ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Anr.
......Respondents 4.
CWP-871-2006 M/s Clarion Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 5.
CWP-3822-2006 Ramesh alias Rameshar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 6.
CWP-1990-2006 Mangat Ram & others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 7.
CWP-2621-2006 Devi Ram and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 8.
CWP-1111-2006 Kartar and others.
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 9.
CWP-14085-2007 Raj Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 10.
CWP-15285-2006 Satya Pal and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 11.
CWP-1889-2006 M/s Reko Trading Co.
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Anr.
......Respondents 12.
CWP-841-2006
-2Laxman ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 13.
CWP-12802-2007 M/s Petro Ways India Pvt.Ltd. and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 14.
CWP-14696-2006 Anil Girotra and others ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 15.
CWP-843-2006 M/s NU Tech Inks & Allied Products 39KM Stone Delhi......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 16.
CWP-820-2006 AVS Brake Linings Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CWP-3168-2006 M/s Raghbir Machinery Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 18.
CWP-14666-2004 Kailash Chand Khanna ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 19.
CWP-2721-2006 Lachhman Dass .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 20.
CWP-3020-2006 M/s KEGGFARMS Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 21.
CWP-8750-2006 Damodar Lal Mangla and Anr.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 22.
CWP-7043-2006 Amit Gupta and Another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 23.
CWP-2568-2006 M/s G.E.O.Miller & Co. Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 24.
CWP-19972-2005 Narayan Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 25.
CWP-18943-2007
-3Dalbir Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 26.
CWP-1299-2006 Speciality Coating & Laminations ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 27.
CWP-785-2006 M/s Swati Aluminium ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 28.
CWP-15631-2006 M/s Suntax Finance and Investment Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 29.
CWP-4015-2006 M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 30.
CWP-3600-2006 M/s Jagjit Engineering Industries Pvt.Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 31.
CWP-12906-2006 M/s Anand Spinning and Weaving Mills and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 32.
CWP-959-2006 M/s Goodcare Pharma Private Ltd.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 33.
CWP-910-2006 Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 34.
CWP-4676-2006 M/s Tex Corp. Limited ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 35.
CWP-2251-2006 Rajesh & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 36.
CWP-1868-2006 Lance Naik Mange Ram .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 37.
CWP-6247-2006 Rattan Singh and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 38.
CWP-2829-2006
-4Harjit Singh and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 39.
CWP-16363-2005 HMD Technologies .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 40.
CWP-8893-2008 Jain Biradari Garhi Harsaru .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 41.
CWP-5252-2006 Gajraj Singh and Others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 42.
CWP-15292-2006 Naraini Devi .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 43.
CWP-2154-2006 P V Justin and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 44.
CWP-16087-2004 Rajni Barara & another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 45.
CWP-13238-2004 Hari Ram .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 46.
CWP-11964-2006 R.N.Aggarwal .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 47.
CWP-6081-2007 Constance Bhatty and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 48.
CWP-3544-2006 Balbir Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 49.
CWP-1108-2006 Rajesh Jain and others .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 50.
CWP-6846-2007 Archana Kumari Yadav .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 51.
CWP-5630-2006
-5Pushp Garg .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents 52.
CWP-2308-2007 Jatin Sapra and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents and 53.
CWP-1365-2006 Sukhpal and Others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Yes/No 2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.
3.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......
Present:
Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate, Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate Mr.Aashish Chopra, Advocate, Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate Mr.Sunil Chadha, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Swati Verma, Advocate Mr.Harsh Kinra, Advocate Mr.Adarsh Jain & Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocates & Ms.Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate Mr.Narender Hooda, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Snigdha Dash & Mr.Sameer Rohtagi, Advocates Mr.J.P.Ahlawat, Advocate for Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate Mr.Shailendra Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Salil Nayyar, Advocate Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vijay S.Kajla, Advocate Mr.Vikas Behl, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate Mr.J.L.Malhotra, Advocate Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate and Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate Mr.Sunil K.Rana, Advocate, Mr.N.L.Sammi, Advocate, Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate
-6Mr.Rajender Chhokar, Advocate Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate Mr.Gaurav Mahunta, Advocate with Mr.Komal Abrol, Advocate Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate Mr.Deepak Kumar Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for HSIIDC.
Mr.R.S.Khosla, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Ishrat Phulka, Advocate Mr.Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate for UOI Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Panel counsel for UOI. ........
SURYA KANT, J.
This order shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions as the common question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, `the New Act') is attracted and consequently whether the acquisition of land/properties of the petitioners vide Notifications dated 29.01.2003 and 28.01.2004 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, `the 1894 Act') followed by Award dated 27.01.2006 deserves to be declared to have lapsed?
[2] It is not necessary to go into the descriptions of properties under acquisition or the individual grounds taken on merits by the petitioners for challenging the acquisition of their respective land/properties. Suffice to mention that land/properties of petitioners situated in the revenue estates of villages Narsinghpur, Khandsa, Mohammadpur Jharsa, Harsaru, and Garoli Khurd, Tehsil & District Gurgaon were acquired vide above-stated Award for the public purpose of "Special Economic Zone". In the light of the admitted
-7fact that during the pendency of these writ petitions the New Act has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that wherever Section 24(2) of the New Act is held to be applicable, the impugned acquisition in such case will be deemed to have lapsed. [3] With a view to attract Section 24(2) of the New Act, petitioners are obligated to establish at least one of the following two ingredients, namely:
"(i) that they did not consent to receive the compensation amount and in the absence of such consent, the compensation amount has not been deposited with the Court where Reference under Section 18 was maintainable in accordance with Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, before the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014; and (ii) notwithstanding the fact that the Award was passed and their land/properties stood vested in the State free from all incumbrances, possession of the acquired land/properties have not been taken from them for a period of five years or more from the date of passing of the Award till the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014."
[4] For the purpose of answering the question formulated at the outset and in compliance to the order passed by this Court on 23.09.2014, Mr.Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for HSIIDC has come up with the compilation in a Tabulated Form, acknowledging the fact that in the cases described below, neither the petitioners have received compensation nor possession of the acquired land/properties has been taken over by HSIIDC (except CWP No.19972 of 2005 Narayan Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and others in which also only part compensation has been received by the land-owners):- Sr.
No.
CWP No. Land Details Status of Compensation Status of possession Remarks (date & Order)
-8Narsinghpur 856/06 5//6/1/2 (OKL-12ML), 6/1/1/2 (2KL-11ML), 15/1 (0KL8ML) 0.444 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 2.
2925/06 6//14/1 min (0KL-10ML) 0.063acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 27.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 3.
2268/06 5//16 min (0KL-6ML) 0.038 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 16.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 4.
871/06 5//15/2 (0KL-7.25 ML) 0.045 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 5.
3822/06 11//18/2 (4KL-4ML) 0.53 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 09.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 6.
1990/06 11//12/2/2 (5KL-10ML) 0.69 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 09.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 7.
2621/06 11//12/2/1 (0KL-11ML), 19/1 (5KL-0ML), 22/2 (5KL-0ML) 1.32 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 21.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 8.
1111/06 6//24/3 (0KL-7ML), 25/2 (2KL-1ML) 0.30 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 24.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 9.
14085/07 5//24/2 min (1KL-18ML), 6//4/2 min (3KL-0ML) 0.613 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 11.09.07 NOM stay dispossession 10.
15285/05 5//5(3KL-14ML) 0.46 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 25.09.06 NOM status quo 11.
1889/06 5//16 min (0KL-6ML),17/1/1 (0KL-1ML) 0.044 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 07.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 12.
841/06 1//21/1/2 (1KL-18ML) 0.24 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 stay dispossession 13.
12802/07 7//4/1 (4KL-17ML), 5/1/1 (0KL-8ML), 4//24 (7KL-4ML) 1.56 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 20.08.07 NOM stay dispossession 14.
14696/06 5//16 min (3KL-15ML), 6//14/3 min (0KL-10ML), 15/3 min (10KL-3ML), 17/2/1 min (0KL-3ML), 14/1 (0KL-3ML), 15/1 min (0KL-7ML) 0.63 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 14.09.06 NOM stay dispossession 843/06 7//18/2/2 (5KL-7ML) 0.67 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 16.
820/06 5//24/2 (0KL-3.2 ML), 25 (7KL-8ML) 6//4/2 (0KL5.8ML), 5(5KL-8ML) 1.91 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 17.
3168/06 7//7/2(2KL-19ML),8(8KL0ML), 14/1 (1KL-3ML) 1.513 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 02.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 18.
14666/04 6//7/2(6KL-12ML), 8/1 (1KL12ML) 1.03 acres (8KL-4ML) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 10.12.04 NOM stay dispossession Khandsa 19.
2721/06 1039(0B-16B-0B), 1040/1 Not lifted Possession of land 23.02.06 NOM
-9- (0B-7B-0B) 0.72 acres not with HSIIDC stay dispossession 20.
3020/06 1062(10B-9B-0B), 1063/1(5B4B-0B), 1068min (3B-9B12B), 1072min (1B-12B-0B), 1073(0B-5B-0B),1074(0B16B-0B), 1075(1B-16B-0B), 1076 (0B-6B-0B), 1078/1 (1B8B-12B), 1078/2min(3B-16B2B), 1079min(0B-12B-0B), 1085/2 (5B-0B-0B) 21.7 acres (34B-14B-6B) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 02.03.06 NOM status quo 21.
8750/06 1063/2(5B-4B-0B) 3.25 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 30.05.06 NOM stay dispossession 22.
7043/06 1620/1081/2(0B-7B-8B)0.23 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 08.05.06 notice of motion 23.
2568/06 1047(0B-11B-0B), 1048(0B12B-0B), 1049 (0B-12B-0B), 1050min (1B-1B-0B), 1314/1058 (0B-9B-0B), 1315/1059 (1B-9B-0B), 2.94 acres (4B-14B-0B) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 28.03.06 NOM.
No stay. Award amount for Khasra No.1050min deposited at A.D.J. Gurgaon U/s -30 & balance amount not lifted 24.
19972/05 67(0B-6B-0B), 68(5B-16B0B), 69(7B-16B-0), 102 (1B5B-10.2B), 113 (1B-10B-4B) 10.43 acres (16B-13B-14.2B) Compensation lifted for Khasra No.113.
Balance compensation not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 07.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 25.
18943/07 87/2(1B=13B-12B) 1.05 acres (1B-13B-12B) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 31.01.08 NOM for 03.03.08 No stay Village Mohammadpur Jharsa 26.
1299/06 12//23(8-0), 24(8-0), 21//4/1 (4-10) 2.56 acres (20-10) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 30.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 27.
785/06 11//13/2 (4KL-16ML), 14/1/1/2(0KL-5ML), 19/1(4KL-0KL) 1.13 acres (9KL-1ML) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 19.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 28.
15631/06 24//19(7KL-12ML) 0.95 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 10.10.06 NOM stay dispossession 29.
4015/06 9//10/2(6KL-9ML), 11(7KL12ML), 20(7KL-12), 21(7KL12ML), 12//1/2 (3KL-12ML) 4.11 acres (32 KL-17ML) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 16.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 30.
3600/06 11//3/2(0-18), 7/2/3/1 (0-11), 8(7-0), 13/1 (3-4), 14/1/1 (0-3) 1.48 acres (11-16) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 07.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 31.
12906/06 24//3/2 (6-9), 7/1(2-12), 8(80), 13/1(4-11) 2.7 acres (2112) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 21.08.06 NOM status quo 32.
959/06 21//5/1 (5KL-14ML), 22/1 (8KL-0ML) 1.71 acres (13KL14ML) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 21.01.06 NOM stay dispossession
-1033.
910/06 12//25/2 (3KL-2ML) 0.39 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 20.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 34.
4676/06 24//3/1 (1KL-11ML) 0.19 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 24.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 35.
2251/06 19//25/1(7KL-8ML), 25//8/1(4KL-0ML), 8/2/1 (2KL-15.7ML), 9/1 (7KL9ML), 10/1 (2KL-8ML) & 332/769 share of 20/7, 14, 17,24 & 25//14/1 Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 16.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 36.
1868/06 437/769 share of 20//7(8-0), 14(8-0), 17(8-0), 24(8-0), 25//4/1(5-11) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 07.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 37.
6247/06 10//19 (6-16), 22/1(4-0), 11//2(8-0), 3/1(6-7), 9(7-18) 4.13 acres (33-1) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 25.04.06 NOM stay dispossession 38.
2829/06 24//6/2(0-17), 15/1 (3-14), 23//11(1-0) 0.69 acres (5-11) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 02.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 39.
16363/05 20//21(8-0) 1 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 08.12.05 NOM stay dispossession 40.
8893/08 11//16min(0-16) 0.10acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 25.05.08 NOM no stay.
Village Harsaru 41.
5252/06 102//12(8-0), 103//13/2/1 (614), 13/2/2(0-17), 14/1 (5-16), 14/2 (0-18), 15(8-0), 16/1 (613), 17min (6-16), 18/1 (1-15) 5.06 acres (40-9) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 03.04.06 NOM stay dispossession 42.
15292/06 105//5/2/2 (3-9), 6/2/1(2-19), 6/2/3 (1-7), 15/1/1 (0-13) 1.05 acres (8-8) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 25.09.06 NOM status quo 43.
2154/06 113//19(8-0), 20(8-12), 22(37) 2.49 acres (19-19) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 14.02.06 NOM stay dispossession 44.
16087/04 90//15/3(2-0), 91//11(80),20(8-0) 2.25 acres (18-0) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC Stay dispossession granted on 20.01.05 13238/04 36//19/3(2-13), 20/1(5-16) 1.06 acres (8-9) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 30.08.04 NOM stay dispossession 11964/06 91//1/2(4-0), 2/1(7-8), 9/2 (616), 10/1/1(2-1) 2.53 acres (20-5) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 03.08.06 NOM stay dispossession 47.
6081/07 90//2(7-2), 8(6-18.5), 9(5-17), 1(7-7), 11/2/2 (2-0),12(8-0), 13/1(1-16) 5 acres (40-0.5) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 26.04.07 NOM stay dispossession Village Garoli Khurd 48.
3544/06 27//8(6-9), 12/2(3-0), 13(8-0), 9/1 (3-0) 2.56 acres (20-9) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 17.03.06 NOM stay dispossession 49.
1108/06 24//13/4(0-17), 19//22/1(0-4), 22/2(0-4), 26//10/1(0-8), 10/2 (0-4).
Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 24.01.06 NOM stay dispossession 50.
6846/07 12//24/1/2(0-17) 0.11 acres Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 08.05.07 NOM stay
-11dispossession 51.
5630/06 24//13/2 (2-9), 13/3(0-4) 0.33 acres (2-13) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 06.04.06 Stay dispossession 52.
2308/07 11//14/2(2-0), 14/3(2-0), 15(80) 1.50 acres (12-0) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 13.02.07NOM.
53.
1365/06 19//22/1(2-13), 22/2 (6-17) 1.19 acres (9-10) Not lifted Possession of land not with HSIIDC 30.01.06 NOM stay dispossession [5] In view of the admitted fact that the compensation amount has neither been received/paid to the petitioners nor it has been deposited in the Court where Reference under Section 18 was maintainable before the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014, there can be no escape but to hold that the impugned acquisition qua the petitioners' lands shall be deemed to have lapsed.
[6] Equally forceful is their plea that since possession of the acquired properties is still with them, be it be due to ad interim stay granted by this Court, the impugned acquisition is liable to be declared to have lapsed on the second ground also, namely, retention of possession of the acquired properties/land by the petitioners for a period of more than five years from the date of Award and before the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014. [7] In all fairness, learned State counsel has urged that since the petitioners have been able to retain the possession as a result of stay granted by this Court and the issue whether such period is to be included or excluded for attracting Section 24(2) has been referred to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, these matters may be kept pending. We are, however, not impressed by the contention. In a recent order dated 27.10.2016 passed in CWP-17464-2007 (Satnam Singh and another vs State of Haryana and others), this aspect has been expressly dealt with and we have held as follows:
-12- "[31] Category No.(3) Adverting to the cases which fall in Category No.(3), it is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Yogesh Neema and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 6 SCC 387 has referred the matter to a Larger Bench to re-consider the legal effect of the absence of any specific exclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court, in the context of Section 24
(2) of 2013 Act. Such a reconsideration is required to be made, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the maxim of 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'.
[32] Learned counsel for the petitioners nonetheless relied upon the decisions in (i) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2015) 3 SCC 353 ; (ii) Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF versus Union of India and others, 2014 SCC Online 990; (iii) Sharma Agro Industries versus State of Haryana and others, (2015) 3 SCC 341 ; and (iv) Yogesh Neema and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 6 SCC 387 to urge that the period of Courtstay or injunction need not to be excluded while computing the period of 5 years within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Act and that in a case where physical possession of the land could not be taken by the State due to interim stay granted by the Court, there also the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed.
[33] This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that as
-13of now the above cited decisions explicitly hold that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act will apply with full force even if the expropriated owner/occupier retained the possession for relevant period under the stay order passed by a Court. These are binding precedents. "[34] State of Maharashtra and another versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and others (2013) 16 SCC 16, unequivocally holds that where the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of its own judgment and referred the matter before a Larger Bench, the earlier judgment on a point of law has to be followed and it will have the binding force within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. We are thus of the view that until the Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down otherwise, the decisions cited in para No.
32 of this order are binding on this Court on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act on the question of 'exclusion' or 'inclusion' of the period of stay or injunction against dispossession granted by a Court." [8] In the light of the above discussion, the only irresistible conclusion would be to hold that as a result of non-payment of compensation amount to the petitioners or the failure of authorities in depositing the same with the Competent Court, as also their failure to take possession of the acquired land/ properties, for whatever reason it may be, the provisions of Sections 24(2) of the New Act are fully attracted and are applicable in the captioned cases.
[9] Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed. The acquisition of the petitioners' land/properties vide Award dated 27.01.2006 is declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act. [10] Having held so, we are surely of the view that since Section 24
-14-
(2) of the New 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 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 New Act. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE November 07, 2016 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No