High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/1315/2018dismissed

Puran Singh And ANR v. State Of Haryana & Others

2022-08-31The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Arun Palli11 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1315 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 29.03.2022 Date of Decision: 31 August, 2022 Puran Singh and another ...petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...respondents

Present:7 Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda for respondent No. 1 and 4. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ****

The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 05.10.2005 and 06.10.2006 respectively; followed by the award dated 17.10.2008, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sector 59 & 60 in the Revenue Estate of Village Nangal Kalan, Aterna and Sersa, Tehsil & District Sonepat qua the land of the petitioner as has been claimed in the petition, has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, like many other writ petitions, the proceedings in the instant petition were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

!, penultimate paragraphs thereof are reproduced here in below:7 "# $ % & '

('( & ) % &

& % & % *+ %

%& % * & ) - ) )) %% .& , & - % & + &,

& & '

('-(% & % *

& % / % - * 0 ) "1 & '( - )

- "1 "1 0 % &2 &, & '(% & % * 3

& % % % &

& % & + % - 3&

- )+ & - 3+&

+ % &

- + - 3

4 4 % & '( % & % * & % &

& 0 &2& % 5

& '( & - ) & 6 % ,

-%&'

)( % %& %

&2 & % & % /

- &

&&&) %

& % *& - , & * % &2 & % / -% %

+ & *% & &-, 75 %&

'& (

% &2 &,&%5 ) &

6 % ,%% +&

& % * - 8 )8

% %& % &2 & % & % / 9 & - &

& * '

(% & %

/ + & &2 & '( 5 5 % &

& 0- , &

, & * '

()) % &&

), %& % , &

+ & & &2

&, & '( % & % * ! 0 & '(% & % *

- % & '( % & '

('-( : 0 % 3, & %

/ &

& '(-), %2 ; <&)- 3, & !% & % / +

& '(% & % *+& -

3 & '( / 0 % & '( , % % &,

&- & % & 3 &

%% -% & % * & %&+ &,% &2 , ) && 0 % - & % - & - .& &

& '(% & % * ,

)&%& 2 , %&&

&, % &2 &

&, , %%& % & % *+ + 5- & && &,

)

) 2 , % % 3,

&, % % &

% & &2 #= 3.

The sum and substance of the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is that the first and foremost condition to seek lapsing is that both the contingencies provided i.e. about the physical possession and the payment of compensation are to be fulfilled, meaning thereby, if either of the conditions is not satisfied, there would be no lapsing. As far as the obligation to make the payment in lieu of

the land acquired is concerned, it has been clarified that such obligation to pay is complete by tendering the compensation which would mean that the compensation amount was made available to the land owner and if he has not accepted the same, it will not be available for the land owner to claim that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word "deposit" has been interpreted to mean depositing with the LAC or the treasury or the Reference Court. Drawing of panchnama has been considered to be a valid proof of taking physical possession and once the land stands vested in the State, there is no divesting provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further clarified that the period for which any interim order was in operation, will be excluded while computing the gap period of five years. Similarly, it has been clarified that Section 24

(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition as it applies to only those cases wherein the proceedings were pending on the date of the enforcement of the Act of 2013.

As per the case put forth by the petitioners, they are the owners of 2 Kanal land as co7sharer of the land comprised in Mustil and Killa Nos. 25//12/2 (2K711M), 19/2(5K78M), 19/1(2K74M), 20(7K712M), 22/1 (2K7 15M), 26//16/2 (5K77M) total measuring 25K717M situated in the Revenue estate of village Nangal kalan, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat and they are in continuing cultivating possession of the aforesaid 2Kanal land comprised in Khasra No. 26//16/2. The said land was acquired by the Government of Haryana by issuing of notifications dated 05.10.2005 and 06.10.2006 under Section 4 & 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by award dated 17.10.2008 for the public purpose namely, for development and utilization of land for Residential Sector 59 and 60 Sonepat. The petitioners have relied

upon Khasra Girdawaris of Kharif7Rabbi Crop from October 2010 to September 2013 to show that the possession of the land is still with the petitioners and despite having announced the award on 17.10.2008, the respondents have failed to take the possession of the land in question. Further, they have contended that till date neither the compensation of the acquired land was paid to the petitioners nor was deposited with the Reference Court in accordance with law. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioners contended that after acquisition, major part of the land was released and was handed over to private colonizers who have been granted licenses to develop the land with collaboration with the land owners. Taking all the pleas, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.05.2015, thereby directing the respondent7authorities to decide the representations moved by the petitioners considering all the grounds as raised in the petition. The representation moved by the petitioners was decided and the claim was rejected by passing speaking order dated 04.01.2017.

While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, it was noticed that as claimed by the petitioners that they are owners of 2 Kanal land, as per the record the petitioners are owners of the only 20.58 marla land comprised in Khasra No. 25//12/2 (2711), 19/2 (578), 22/1(2715), 19/1(274). The possession of the acquired land was handed over by the LAC to HSIIDC vide Rapat No. 98 dated 17.10.2008 and Sector Road has also been constructed on some portion of the acquired land. As regards the status of compensation, it was noticed in the order that the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 44.59 crores was deposited in account of LAC Sonepat out of which 16.

and Rs. 28.17 crores have been deposited in the Reference Court. The petitioners in the instant petition have challenged both the acquisition proceedings as well as the speaking order.

Per7contra, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) as none of the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled. The first and foremost requirement for claiming lapsing of acquisition proceedings is to prove that the land owner is in possession of the land in question, which the petitioners have failed to prove as the possession of the land in question was taken by the State by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 98 dated 17.10.2008, which has been held as a valid mode of taking possession.

Once such possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the State and who so ever retains or remains in the possession of the land, he is a trespasser, therefore, the reliance on the Khasra Girdawaris as has been placed by the petitioners could only show that the petitioners were using the acquired land as a trespasser and not as an owner. He further submits that the obligation of the State to pay the compensation duly discharged as the entire compensation amount was tendered and was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat and out of the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 44.59 crores, Rs. 14.62 crores have been disbursed to the land owners and an amount of Rs. 28.17 crores, which also includes the compensation amount due to the petitioners, is deposited in the Reference Court.

stands tendered, thus he has prayed that present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the respective arguments, going through the respective pleadings and above all the exposition of Indore Development Authority (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason.

!"#$

$&$'( %"!&)&*+% ($& (!&) (!,%& 7.

The petitioners in the instant petition have claimed to be in the physical possession of the land in question. Positive case set up by the Petitioners is that even though the award was passed on 17.10.2008 and they did not make challenge to the acquisition proceedings but yet the physical possession has not been taken from them. In this regard, the respondents have filed the written statement submitting that possession was taken by drawing panchnama in the form of Rapat Roznamcha No. 98 dated 17.10.2008 which has been held as a valid mode of taking possession of the land. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provides that after taking the possession of the land, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the physical possession of the land in question stands duly taken and stand vested in the State. Thus, the plea being raised by the Petitioners of being in physical possession of the land in question is wholly mis7conceived and is liable to be rejected. $-#%& !($&!-$+&('$.( %"!&)&*+% ($&/!

(%&)%.%) 8.

The respondents have categorically pleaded in the written statement that the amount of compensation for the entire acquired land was made available to all the landowners and was deposited with the land

acquisition collector, Sonepat. Further, the amount due towards the land in question has been deposited in the reference Court, therefore, there remains not even an iota of doubt for the fact that the State has duly discharged its obligation to pay the amount of compensation. In this regard, Mr. Mittal has asserted that in view of the exposition in Indore Development Authority (supra) the obligation of the State to pay the compensation is discharged if the amount of compensation is tendered which has been interpreted to mean that the amount was made available to the land owners as observed in Para 203 which is reproduced here in below:7

$ % &

>) +& % - ) ) -&,% - , 3 & & - % %

3, ' &

( # ) #

&+ &,-*

# % $

( % &

(

% &

/ %

(

% (

(

( & $

, & + & *

, & + &

& 1% &

2 &

# $

% (&3

% ) #

% (

>) +& ) ,

+ - & *+

& 1%

)

* 4

( 5

The afore7stated facts clearly reveal that the observations made here in above did not leave any scope for doubt that the State has discharged its obligation towards making the compensation for the land acquired. Therefore, the obligation of the State to pay compensation stands discharged for all intent and purposes.

$&%$'( % $&)($& #.% .0%)&% ($&12314$'( % ($' 1567!.%'+"'""%) 9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indore Development Authority (supra) has clearly observed that for deemed lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions i.e. payment of compensation and taking of possession must not be fulfilled i.e. if either of the condition is fulfilled, the lapsing cannot happen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that word "or" occurring in Section 24

(2) of the Act of 2013 must be read as "and/nor". Relevant paras from the judgment are reproduced here in below:7 -- ' 3

( $ &

$% %

( % &

& (

( $#&

& ,-*

% & * & + & +#

( &

$% 5 & #

(

' 78 2 + + % 9 &':

;;(3 < & 3

% &

$% (

= % &

& & '

% > ' &

( & &

& & '

! #

: &

" # &

$ &

! $% !+

(

% !'

( !

# & $ &

$ &

(

% 1'412! ( %

(! !

% '&(

(

% (

( # & #

$2 (

*'&(

(

$% (

$% &

& &

2 (. 0 5

> '

% ?'

0+ % % &2 &, )+ & '(%- - 3+ + & 3+ &

+ &2 &,

#1 10.

In the case at hand as reflected from the speaking order as well as reply filed, it is evident that after the award was announced on 17.10.2008, the physical possession was taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 98 dated 17.10.2008 and the compensation amount was duly tendered and deposited in the reference Court as well. Therefore, since, none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, therefore, the said provision cannot be relied upon by the Petitioners to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.

%&(!"( $'( %"!&)&*+% ($& 11.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, on the strength of the facts pleaded in the written statement, has vehemently contended that the State acquired the land for the public purpose for utilization of land for development and utilization

of land as Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sector 59 & 60. The land in question is very much essential to achieve the public purpose as per the layout plan. We have considered this part of argument raised by the respondents and we are in complete agreement with the same as this is an important factor to be kept in mind while dealing with the case arising out of the acquisition of land to achieve the public purpose and it is the state/its authority who is in the best position to decide about utilization of the land acquired, after it having been vested in State. 12.

As a sequel of the above discussion and in view of law summarized in para 363 of Indore Development Authority (supra), specifically after having recorded that in the case at hand, the physical possession of the land in question having been taken, the obligation for payment of compensation discharged and also considering that the land in question is very much essential to achieve the public purpose, we have no hesitation to hold that in the instant case, the state has fully discharged its obligation qua both the contingencies occurring in section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and it being so, the instant petition is dismissed. 13.

Having dismissed the main writ petition, all pending applications, if any, also meet the same fate. The writ petition is dismissed. Status quo, if any, stands vacated. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) 31 August, 2022 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No