Bharat Bhushan Etc v. State Of Haryana & ANR

-1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 14, 2016 Bharat Bhushan and others .....Petitioners

Versus

The 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.S.P.Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.AG, Haryana.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioners have questioned the acquisition of their land, fully described in para 2 of the writ petition, situated in the revenue estate of village Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Sonipat. The above-stated land was acquired vide Award dated 14.10.2004. The petitioners assert that the acquisition is 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, Urban Estate, Rohtak has filed his status report dated 13.12.2016 in which it is admitted that the petitioners have not received the compensation. It is nowhere averred that the compensation amount was ever deposited with the Reference Court as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,

-21894 (for brevity,`the 1894 Act'). It is maintained that land in dispute has been transferred to Sidharth Cooperative House Building Society Limited and even a revised Award has now been passed on 28.10.2015 so as to pay compensation to the petitioners as per the 2013 Act.

[3] So far as acceptance of compensation as per the revised Award is concerned, it is for the petitioners to take a decision. If they would accept the Award, in that case they shall have no claim for the release of land. However, if the revised Award is not acceptable, then the impugned acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed for non-payment or deposit of the compensation amount as per law and 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.

[4] 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.

-3- [5] Ordered accordingly.

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

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No