High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2176/2018dismissed

Sunita v. State Of Haryana And Others

2022-08-31The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Arun Palli10 pages

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2176 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 29.03.2022 Date of Decision: 31st August, 2022 Sunita .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Present:8 Ms. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General Haryana and Ms.

Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 17.09.2004 and 27.10.2004 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dated 09.03.2006 in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has also impugned the order dated 01.01.2017, vide which the claim of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been rejected by the respondents.

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 2 2.

The controversy cropped up around interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 was put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case

thereby laying down principles for declaring the acquisition as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013. The Apex Court has discussed in detail all the aspects necessary and relevant for interpreting Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, and in this regard a reference is being made to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below:8 '....

! "

# $#$ " %

" !"

! &' ! "(

) !"

! & " % ) % %% !! *"

( " ) ! ' "(

# $#)$! "

! & "

! +

! ) & , % -. "

#$ ) %

) -. -., ! "/ "( "

#$ ! "

! & 0

" % "

! ! ! "

" ! "

' ! ) 0"

) %' " ) 0' "

)

'!"

)

' ) 0

,* 1 1 !"

#$ ! "

! & "

! "

, "/" ! 2

#$ " ) % "

3 ! (

)!" # %$ ! !" !

"/ "

! "

! +

) "

"""% !

! &" ) ( "

& ! 4 "/ "

! +

) ! !

' "

& ! "

")( 52 !"

# $

! "/ "("!2 % "

3 ! (!! '"

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 3 "

! & ) 6 %6

! !" ! "/ "

! +

7 " ) "

& # $ ! "

' "

"/ "

#$ 2 2 ! "

,) ( "

)

( "

& # $4%% ! ""

%( !" ! ( "

' " "

"( "

#$! "

! & , "

#$! "

! &

) ! "

#$ ! "

# $#)$ 8 , ! 0( "

#$)%(! / 9 :"%)

0( "

! "

! +

' ( "

#$ ! "

! &'" ) 0 "

#$ + , ! "

#$ ( ! ! "(

") " ! "

0 "

! ! )! "

! & " !"' "(! "/ ( % ""

, ! ) " ! ) ) *"

#$! "

! & (

% " ! "

/ ( ! ""

"( ! "/ "

"( ( !!" ! "

! &' '

2) "

% / ( ! ! 0(

"( ! ! "

! "/ . 3.

The sum and substance of the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Supreme Court is that to seek lapsing 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 condition

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 4 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 to the land owner to claim that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word "" 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 Supreme Court 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 enforcement of Act of 2013.

As per the case put forth by the petitioner, she is co8owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra no. 1//21 (4818), 22/1 (2816), 2//1/1 (6810), 2/1 (6812) measuring 20 Kanals 16 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Naurangpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana through Industries Department vide notifications dated 17.09.2004 and 27.10.2004 issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively followed by Award dated 09.03.2006 for the public purpose, namely, setting up of Chaudhary Devi Lal Model Industrial Township, Phase8V, Manesar, to be planned and developed as an integrated complex for Industrial,

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 5 Institutional, Commercial, Recreational and other public utilities on land measuring 956 Acres 5 Kanal 18 Marlas of villages Nabada Fatehpur, Naurangpur, Manesar, Lakhnoula, Naharpur Kasan and Shikopur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The petitioner has contended that till date she is in physical possession of the land in question and neither the petitioner has received the amount of compensation nor it has been deposited in accordance with law before the Reference Court. Thus, she has prayed for declaring the acquisition proceedings to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

The co8sharers of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 18772 of 2014 seeking similar relief from this Court and same was disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2015 with directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, in compliance of the said order, the representation given by the petitioner was considered and decided vide order dated 01.01.2017 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by observing that possession of the land in question was taken by recording rapat Roznamcha no. 707 dated 22.03.2006 and Mutation no. 4300 dated 27.06.2013 has also been sanctioned. As regards compensation, it was observed that the majority of compensation has been disbursed and the petitioner has intentionally not the taken the amount of compensation. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 6.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that finding as regards to possession of the land is wrong and further it has been contended that since it is the stand of the respondents that compensation has not been received by the petitioner, the acquisition

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 6 proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

Pursuant to issuance of notice of motion, an affidavit in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) was filed to controvert the pleas raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has contended that the plea of the petitioner to be in physical possession of the land is absolutely wrong as the possession of the land in question was taken by recoding Rapat No. 707 dated 22.03.2006 and the mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of HSIIDC on 27.06.2013. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Indore Development Authority (Supra) as regards the mode of taking possession of the land, the land in question stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

Thus, the plea of the petitioner of being in possession of the land is devoid of merits. As regards the compensation, Mr. Mittal contends that Rs. 122.15 crore was deposited by HSIIDC towards compensation amount and out of said amount, 80% of the compensation has been disbursed to the land owners, which shows that the amount of compensation was duly tendered and the obligation of State stands discharged in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition as none of the contingencies provided in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled.

Apart from making the afore8stated submissions, Mr. Mittal has further contended that the land in question was acquired for the public purpose, namely, setting up of Chaudhary Devi Lal Model Industrial Township, Phase8V, Manesar and as per the approved layout plan the land in

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 7 question is very much essential to complete the development work as per the planning. So much so it affects the planning of the sector dividing road and the Green Belt on both sides.

Having heard the respective arguments, going through the respective pleadings and above all the exposition in Indore Development Authority (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason:8 a)Though the petitioner has contended that she is in actual physical possession of the land in question, however, the said averment is not tenable in view of the interpretation of '

' made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the word possession used in the Act of 1894 has same meaning as that of physical possession used in Section 24 (2) of Act of 2013. When the State Government acquires the land and draws memorandum of taking possession, which in the present case is by recording Rapat Roznamcha no. 707 dated 22.03.2006, it amounts to taking of the physical possession of the land and once the possession is taken, there is absolute vesting of the land in the State. Thereafter, even if the landowner retains the possession of the land, he is a trespasser, and such possession of trespasser enures for the benefit and on behalf of the owner i.e. State. Since possession has been taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha no. 707 dated 22.03.2006, therefore, physical possession of the land stands duly taken by the State. The plea of the petitioner of her being in physical possession of the land

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 8 is thus, hereby rejected. If at all possession has been retained by her, it is only as a trespasser and not as an owner. As a consequence thereof, one of the essentials to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings goes.

b) As regards the status of compensation the respondents have categorically pleaded in the reply that the amount of compensation for the entire acquired land was made available to all the landowners, which is substantiated from the fact that the majority of compensation amount stands disbursed to the landowners. 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 hereinbelow :8

! ""

# $

$ % & ' ;% ' "

! ) % % )"(!

) ( 0 " " ) ! !

0( ( '

# )

* '

+ '

, '

-.+

% ) & '

# )

& ' &%

) *%

)

' % 1

- '

, '

- '

, '

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 9

' 2& '

3' #

% '

& ) '

* !% & ) ;% ' " % (

' ) "

& '

" 2&

% 3' # *

)

' + 4&)

6/ The afore8stated facts clearly reveal that the amount of compensation was duly tendered. So much so, the majority of the compensation amount stands disbursed and thus, the State has discharged its obligation towards making the compensation for the land acquired and thus the plea raised by the petitioner that he has not been paid the compensation amount is rejected. c) Since none of the contingencies provided in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 are fulfilled, the possession of the land stands duly taken by recording Rapat No. 707 dated 22.03.2006 pursuant to which the mutation also stands sanctioned and further the amount of compensation has been paid, no declaration as regards lapsing of acquisition proceedings can be made. d) Also, there is no point to interfere in the acquisition proceedings when the land in question is essential for development of infrastructure.

10.

As a sequel of the above discussion and in view of the 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

CWP No. 2176 of 2018 10 payment of compensation stands 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 2013 Act and it being so, the instant petition is dismissed. 11.

Having dismissed the main writ petition, all pending applications, if any, also meet the same fate. Status quo, if any, stands vacated.

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) 31st August, 2022 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No