J.M. Oberoi And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP-20515-2016 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20515-2016 Date of Decision: December 14, 2016 J.M.Oberoi and another .....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.Divay Sarup, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate for Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for HSIIDC.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioners' land, fully described in para 2 of the writ petition, situated in the revenue estate of village Mauza Kutana, Tehsil and District Rohtak, was acquired vide Award dated 05.02.2007. The petitioners have now challenged the acquisition on the ground that the same shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, `the 2013 Act'). [2] The Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, has filed his status report dated 14.12.2016 in which in para 4 it is admitted that the petitioners have not lifted the compensation amount. The compensation amount is said to have been deposited in the Reference Court as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity,`the 1894 Act') on 07.09.2015 only i.e. after the 2013 Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014.

Meenu 2017.01.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh [3] It further appears that the petitioners have not been physically dispossessed from the site and only symbolic possession was delivered to the

CWP-20515-2016 -2beneficiary department on the date of passing of the Award. Therefore, the impugned acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

[4] For the detailed reasons assigned by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2016 rendered in CWP No.17464 of 2007 titled as Satnam Singh and anr. vs. State of Haryana and ors., the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition is declared to have lapsed on the grounds as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

[5] Having held so, we are further of the view that since Section 24(2) of 2013 Act itself in so many words contemplates the possibility of re-acqusition 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 encumbrances 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 directed 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 2013 Act.

[6] Ordered accordingly.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE December 14, 2016 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.01.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh