High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25659/2017dismissed

Jai Singh Etc. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2023-07-21The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Arun Palli23 pages

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 1 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No. 2303(2023 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2023

.....Petitioners versus

.....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present :

Mr. S.P.Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. **** !"! " ! The instant petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide the order dated 23.01.2023. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners' seeking restoration of the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the writ petition is hereby restored. Main case is taken up for hearing on board today itself and the arguments of the respective parties are heard with respect to the main petition.

# $ 1.

The petitioners have approached this Court by instituting instant writ petition praying for quashing of the notifications dated 18.10.2002 and 08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1894")

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 2 2023:PHHC:121453-DB respectively followed by the award dated 05.09.2005 , on the ground that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 2013") as neither the petitioners have received the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector nor it was deposited in the court and possession of the acquired land is still with the petitioners. 2.

The petitioner No.1 has stated himself to be owner in possession of 3 Marlas of land i.e. 3/6 share out of 6 marla land comprised in Khata No. 14 min, Rect & Killa No. 19//4/1/1/1 (0(5), 3/29/1 (0(1), total (0(6) situated within the revenue estate of Village Sehjanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat whereas petitioner No.2 has stated himself to be owner in possession i.e. 1/4th share (6 marla) out of the land comprised in Khewat No. 119/83, Rectt and Kllla No. 13//9/2/1 (0(5 G.M.Rasta), 9//2/3 (0(10 G.M.Rasta), 10//1/2(0(8), total 1 kanal 3 marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Sehjanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. 3.

As regards the prayer of seeking lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the said prayer is squarely covered against them in terms of the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

, however, he asserts that there is another plea which he would like to press as regards the "

on account of non(payment of compensation amount. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even though the award was announced on 05.09.2005, no compensation amount was given to the land owners upto 12.07.2007 because the award statement

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 3 2023:PHHC:121453-DB and kabja vasool was not complete which shows that the Collector was not in a position to offer amount to the land owners even after two years from the date of award. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a letter dated 12.07.2007 written by Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P(5. Based upon this, learned counsel has contended that the award itself was illegal in the eyes of law and thus, was a nullity as it was announced without tendering of compensation amount required in accordance with Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per him the contention of the earlier award being a nullity stands fortified from the fact that the State Government had announced revised award on 05.06.

2015 thereby assessing compensation in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013. In sum and substance, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once award itself was a nullity on account of non(compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have validly culminated in accordance with law.

Even though the petitioners have sought to raise challenge to award dated 05.09.2005 by terming it to be a nullity, it is pertinent to mention that for all these years, the petitioners did not even plead so and the petition simply got adjourned awaiting the decision of the Apex court as regards the applicability of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 as a result of which the instant petition remained pending in this Court awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of India as regards the interpretation and applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 which came to be decided by the Five Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 4 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

and it was thereafter the instant petition was taken up for hearing. 6.

Controverting the pleas raised by the petitioners, a short reply of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak came to be filed after the pronouncement of the judgment in

. Placing reliance on the same Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has contended that the land claimed in the petition along with other lands was acquired by the State of Haryana through Department of Urban Estates vide notification dated 18.10.2002 and 08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; followed by the award dated 05.09.2005 for the public purpose namely, development and utilization of land as residential, institutional and commercial Sector - 16, Sonepat. Neither any objections were filed under Section 5(A of Act of 1894 nor there was any construction existing on the land claimed in the petition as it was lying completely vacant. After the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings with announcement of award dated 05.09.

2005, the possession of the land in question was taken by recording rapat rojnamcha No. 20 dated 05.09.2005 which implies that due possession was taken and the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The compensation amount qua the land in question alongwith other acquired land was duly tendered at the time of announcement of award and was made available to the landowners. 7.

Learned State counsel further argued that validity of award is to be seen only against the touchstone of Section 11 and 11(A of Act of 1894 which primarily would include two aspects i.e., award is announced within 2 years from the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Act

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 5 2023:PHHC:121453-DB of 1894 and the award was announced with approval of the State Government. Validity of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 is not dependent on Section 31 of Act of 1894 which postulates about the manner in which the compensation amount, pursuant to announcement of award is to be paid or deposited in the court. He places reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in

to contend that stage of Section 31 i.e., payment of compensation under Act of 1894 comes only after the passing of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894, except in the case of invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of Act of 1894, where 80% of estimated compensation amount has to be tendered and paid before taking possession of the land. 8.

As per Section 31(1), the Collector has to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and shall pay such amount unless he is prevented from doing so, for any of three contingencies provided under sub(Section (2) of Section 31 in which case he has to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court. The three contingencies are (i) refusal to receive the amount of compensation, (ii) if there be no person competent to alienate the land; (iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or if there is dispute as to the apportionment. The effect of non(compliance of Section 31 is envisaged in Section 34 of Act of 1894. It deals with a situation where any of the obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e.

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 6 2023:PHHC:121453-DB annum. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act of 1894, when the award is announced under Section 11, thereafter the possession is taken under Section 16, the land vests in the State. At this stage, announcement of the award and taking of possession is not dependent on the payment of compensation; therefore, the question of compliance of Section 31 of the Act of 1894 does not arise at all. The only consequence of non(compliance of Section 31 is provided under Section 34 of Act of 1894 which can by no stretch of imagination, would relate back to the validity of the award announced under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, he prays to reject the plea of the petitioner as regards the award being nullity as misconceived and clearly against the scheme of the Act of 1894 itself. 9.

As regards the aspect of compensation, Mr. Mittal submits that pursuant to the announcement of the award on 05.09.2005, the compensation amount was duly tendered and was made available to the landowners. He has further stated that earlier the award was announced on 05.09.2005 @ Rs. 12,50,000/( per acre. However, since there was a spurt of litigations seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, only 31.11% of amount of compensation was disbursed among the landowners and as per the law prevalent at that time, the word 'paid' used in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 was interpreted to mean actual payment or deposit in the Court; in order to save the acquisition proceedings from lapsing, the decision was taken by the State Government to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions relating to assessment of compensation of Act of 2013, qua which the directions were also issued by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2014 passed in CWP No. 8052 of 2009. Accordingly, the additional award was announced

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 7 2023:PHHC:121453-DB on 05.06.2015 for the entire acquired land @ Rs. 414/( per square yard as fixed on 03.06.2015 based upon the assessment made by the Court of Additional District Judge in reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including 100% solatium multiplier factor and 12% increase in the market value for the actual date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 till the assessment of compensation as per the Act of 2013. The total amount of the compensation of the additional award i.e., Rs. 1,78,92,06,315/( was also tendered out of which Rs. 57,25,46,020/( has been disbursed to the land owners. The petitioners are at liberty to receive the compensation amount. No fault can be attributed to the State agencies for non(payment of compensation as they had fulfilled their obligation to pay the compensation amount after tendering the compensation amount. He submits that this aspect is also covered by the decision of

in which it has been held that the "tender" of compensation is sufficient discharge of the obligation to pay compensation and actual payment or deposit in the court is not required. 10.

In view of the aforestated facts and placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in

, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that none of the grounds for seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings as required under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, as the possession of the land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered, besides the land owners are being paid amount assessed in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013 even though the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was announced way back on 05.09.2005. For declaring the acquisition proceedings to have been lapsed, it

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 8 2023:PHHC:121453-DB is incumbent upon the landowner to show that both the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 i.e. "non(payment of compensation" and "non(taking of possession" co(exists. If one of the contingencies remains unfulfilled, there can be no declaration as regards the lapsing of acquisition proceedings. Since in the case at hand the possession of the land in question stands taken and the compensation also stands tendered, there can be no declaration as to lapsing of acquisition proceedings as none of the contingencies as prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 is fulfilled.

11.

We have heard the arguments made by the respective parties at length. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that the matter is covered against the petitioners as regards the plea of lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 in view of the judgment in

, however, since replies were filed long back and the Learned counsel appearing for the State has asserted all claims, we deem it appropriate to deal with issue of lapsing as well besides considering the issue as to whether non(compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894 would render an award nullity. 12.

The interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 had remained subject matter of controversy for quite a while, until it was settled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of

The principles of interpreting the provision were summarized in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in the manner as follows:

! "#$ %$ % & "'

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 9 2023:PHHC:121453-DB &&& "'

( )* & +& "'

( " + ,

) + &

)

! "#$ %$+% "'

( -.#( + / ! "#$"% +

& + / &

) ! "#$"% "'

( 0

& &&& (

+ 0 & + + 0 & + !&

& +

+ 0 #/, & ! "#$"% "'

(

! "#$"% + & 1

)

+ $ %

! # -.# (

+ & "'

( + ) ! 2 (

( -.# +

! #

( + ) 3 & $

) & 1 ) & & "'

( +

! # -.#( 4 + & ! $ %

-.#( & &

! "#$"% & &

/ + )

& + ) &

! $ % / &

) ) & &

) ! "#$"% "'

(

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 10 2023:PHHC:121453-DB / ! "#$"% "'

( + ! "#$"% ! "#$ %$+% 5/& 0) -.#( & ! "#$"%+ )

6&& & 7 + 0) ! -.# ( ! )

! "#$"% "'

( + 0 ! "#$"% -/ ! "#$"% ) & ) +

& & + "'

( & )

)

#/ + & +

& .! "#$"% "'

( )

)

! "# ) ) & "'

( "'

# & + &

)

) & 0) ) & &

13.

The sum and substance of the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Apex Court 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 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

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 11 2023:PHHC:121453-DB that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word " has been interpreted to mean depositing with the Land Acquisition Collector 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 Apex 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.

14.

Testing the factual matrix of the case against the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it transpires that the possession of the land claimed in the petition was taken by recording rapat No. 20 dated 05.09.2005. The Apex Court in

has categorically held that the recording of panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession of the land and amounts to taking of physical possession of the land. Once the possession of the land is taken, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances and any person who retains the possession of the land thereafter is a trespasser. The reference in this regard is made to the following paragraphs from the judgment:( # 8 0) -.#( "#! -.#( & + 0 + ! 9 & )

&+ ! &!& & ) ! 5$ %/ + -.# ( ! "#$"% "'

( ,

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 12 2023:PHHC:121453-DB +& )

& 0)

)

& ! "#$"%

+ 0

"# $% &

' ( (

" %")"

( *(

$ & * & ( &

% * $"

((

" %" "#5/

+ 0) -.# ( , ! "#$"%

( ("

& $ $"

&% ,*

" ( ),*

- "

$ ,*

" ( !

' "# $ ( ,* &

,* " ( 7

) 0

)

+ +

/ &

)

+ 0+ )

) + ) )( &(( * ( . "

* & " % $" (

) ( $( %( ( the real owner that is the State Government in the case. 15.

With respect to the status of compensation, the amount of original award was duly tendered and was made available to the landowners. In the case at hand, even though there was no requirement in law to announce additional award for paying the compensation in terms of the Act of 2013, yet the State Government in its wisdom took a decision which is so recorded in the direction issued by this Court in order dated 26.05.2015 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8052 of 2009, to announce an additional award by making the assessment of compensation, thereby applying the provisions of determination of compensation of the Act of 2013 i.e. Section 26 to 30 of the Act. This appears to have happened owing to the perplexity

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 13 2023:PHHC:121453-DB prevailing as regards the interpretation of the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 because as stated before us, the actual payment made to the land owner on the date of coming into effect of 2013 Act, was approximately 31.11% and thus, to save the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose, the Government announced the additional award which in any eventuality will relate back to the original award having been announced on 05.09.2005, as the law contemplates drawn of only one award which had been validly done in the case at hand in the year 2005. Seeing the same from the perspective of interpretation made by the

& the State was not under any obligation to announce the additional award but it having done so with the apparent intent to save the acquisition and the same being not an issue before us, we do not want to deliberate any further with regard to this aspect except to say that this step of the State Government conclusively indicates about the essentiality of the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose for which it was sought to be acquired.

16.

It is the stand of the State that the amount due to the petitioners as per additional award, is available for disbursement and the petitioners are at liberty to receive the same. This shows that the compensation amount was duly tendered and the obligation of the State to pay the compensation stands duly discharged. In view of the exposition in

& 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 205 which is reproduced here in below:(

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 14 2023:PHHC:121453-DB /01/ ! $ %

&+, : :

; + + & & ; +) & &2$ &"

(

% $ $ %"*(

% * , "

" % ( (

+ & 0 & ! # ( -.# ! " $ +

+ )

& 0) ! & % ) &

& 0) & !

) 4 & ! # & ! -' ( "'

! # & ! -' ( "'

& + = &

) & *

+ & 0 & ,) ! $"% + 2$ &" $ *

& %

-+&

" = &) > *

0 + &

! # ?

) < 17.

As far as the reliance on Annexure P(5 is concerned, it would have no bearing in view of the fact that it was merely an inter(departmental communication to send the man power for disbursing compensation. It would in no manner imply that the compensation was not tendered and deposited with LAC. In view of the said fact, second contingency for claiming the lapsing of acquisition proceedings is also not available to the petitioners.

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 15 2023:PHHC:121453-DB 18.

The Apex Court in

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 take place. The Apex Court has observed that word "" occurring in Section 24

(2) of the Act of 2013 must be read as "3". Relevant paras from the judgment are reproduced here in below:( @ '' *

< )

! "#$"% ) + +/

)

-.# ! "# ( "'

(

)

+ ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,

'" 86 > (& & ( / 755 * A *

+ ) , + 1 +

& +

+ $ % & &

& :::

: ! 7, ; & ) :

: ) :( ) $ & %

+ :

:/ , + & + ,) &&+ )

=/?=>: !

:: :

+ & ) & +

& + ,)> ''' +& $ #% )

+ & / :

: +

)

) &&

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 16 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

& +

+ +& ,> '''< $ 4% /

& + ) & B&

& / +

+ + / / ) & $&

% )& ( ( "# "* $& "

+(% % ,& & " ,& "

& "# "*

04 19.

Since the possession of the acquired land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered and also received (original amount of compensation) for majority of land holdings, we hereby hold that none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, therefore, said provision cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. 20.

Even though the petitioners all throughout maintained a stand that the present writ petition is only limited and confined to applicability of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, yet they have now sought to raise additional plea as regards the "nullity of award" on account of non(payment of compensation. It is incomprehensible that plea sought to be raised by the petitioners runs counter to the facts of the case as the petitioners have received the original amount of compensation awarded in the year 2005 for majority of land. Once it is so, aforesaid plea of the petitioners falls flat and shows they are only making an attempt to keep litigation alive on one ground or another. It is pertinent to mention that even otherwise such plea cannot be entertained at this stage because if the petitioners were aggrieved

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 17 2023:PHHC:121453-DB of the said fact, they should have approached this Court at the time when award was announced in 2005, whereas they are approaching in 2019 raising their claim entirely on 24(2) of Act of 2013, which is also barred by delay and laches as cause of action to claim lapsing also had arisen 5 years back on 01.01.2014. Therefore, observing from every angle, the instant petition deserves dismissal.

21.

Nonetheless, even in law the argument of the petitioners that award becomes nullity even if compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 is made, is completely misconceived and rests on faulty foundation and interpretation of scheme of Act of 1894. We are in agreement with the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that plea sought to be set up by the petitioners runs antithesis to scheme of the Act of 1894. The acquisition proceedings (other than for Company) are carried out under Part(II of the Act of 1894 which commences from Section 4 providing therein the procedure of publication of preliminary notification and culminates with Section 17 which provides for the procedure to be undertaken in case the land is to be acquired, in cases of urgency.

It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the issuance of notification and declaration under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act of 1894 respectively and undertaking all the procedure prescribed in the Act, the acquisition proceedings are finalized only with the announcement of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894. Requirements of a valid award are twofold i.e.

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 18 2023:PHHC:121453-DB 1894. Pursuant to the announcement of award, Section 16 authorizes the Collector to take possession of the land whereafter, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Till this stage of announcement of award and taking possession of the acquired land, the legislature has not put any obligation on the collector to pay the compensation amount either at the time of announcement of award or taking possession of the acquired land. It is only in the case of acquisition proceedings undertaken by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 that it is mandatory to tender payment of 80% of compensation for land being acquired and pay it to the person interested unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Section 31 (2) of Act of 1894.

22.

The payment of compensation amount is provided in Part V of the Act of 1894. It commences with Section 31, which provides that on making an award under Section 11, the collector shall tender payment of compensation to the interested persons entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Sub Section (2) of Section 31. Section 31 is extracted herein below for the ready reference:( C & & &*

D $ %5 ,*$ "

& & + & )

& + & & ) & , +! $"%

+ & + & & *

& *

! -

+ +& C & +& & &

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 19 2023:PHHC:121453-DB C &

+ & 0

! - C )

+ & & ( &

$%3 ) )! *

& E 9 &F ) & & & 0 )& ) & + ) , ) &

& & +

+ )) $#% 3 ) ) ) +!

+ & *

)& & 23.

The very opening line of the aforesaid provision i.e. / ,* $ "

4 indicates that the stage of payment of compensation comes only after award under Section 11 is announced. It is after the announcement of award that Section 31(1) requires tender and payment, when amount is made available to the land owners and in case State is prevented from making such payment owing to any of the three exigencies contemplated in Sub Section (2) of Section 31, the amount has to be deposited in the Court. Failure to do so on the part of the State will result into swinging into motion the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1894 which entails payment of interest owing to the delay but in no eventuality, will result into lapsing of the award having been announced validly under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Much less to the claim of the award to be a nullity, as being sought to be projected by the counsel for the petitioners, has no legal basis and is completely misconceived. The view taken by us is finding support from the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

wherein the plea raised by

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 20 2023:PHHC:121453-DB the land owners claiming lapsing of award on account of non(payment of compensation and its non(deposit in the reference Court under Section 31 stood conclusively rejected. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below:( /0

67 ( "

(% "

- ( "

&$" %( *( $ "

)8"

&"(*" "

6& $ % %( ,* 7 + *

& &

& + ) & +! $"% ! ! $%

9 & & 1 + )

, )& & +

! $ % *

& & + & )

% & ) ) + +! $"% ! $"% &

! && 0) & $% G $%+ & G $% & G $% & ,) *

! -

+ +&

! #

+ ) !

& + 0) *

H .I & & 0)

+ G & 0 +

+ H 4I / & -.# (

& 0

0 ! ! 9 &! "$"% + + *

/ 0)

&C & + ! *

&& 0) &

! $"%

! $ % $% *

&& 0) &+

! #H.I &

)

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 21 2023:PHHC:121453-DB + H 4I)&" %

9& " ( ( "

- "

- & "

% * $ & .

" ( "

- & ( "# / & + "'

(+ )! "#$"%7 + 0

) & + & & +

) )

! # & +& + 0 ! "#$"%

+ 0 -.#( + !

5$ % +

! &

&+ & )

+ & H.I H 4I ) ! # -.#(/ ! "#$"% & 0 & & &

+ & 1 )

) & ) & +

+ ) & "'

( / ,

! # 2 (

(

-.# ( & + ) & + + ! #/ ) -.#( & ! # ( + ) & ! "#$"% + ) + & ! # -.#(

( + "

( "

$ 7 &$"#

$ 7 7 ( "

" (

,* "

9 "

- $

-+7"% ,%( * 8"

"(*"& ( (

( ,* 8*"

- - ! (

$ ( ( (

* % * "

- - & + "

( ( "#

"*& " (

$ $ ( "

24.

In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the payment of compensation (either by way of tender, payment to the land owner or deposit in the Reference Court) is an event which follows the announcement of award. Thus, any delay on the part of the State to discharge the obligation

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 22 2023:PHHC:121453-DB towards payment of compensation in either of the form permitted under law, cannot affect the validity of the award having been announced validly under law. If the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted (which otherwise stands rejected) that would mean putting the clock back which is not permitted in law. In the case at hand, all throughout, the petitioners have maintained their challenge on the touch stone of deeming lapsing provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, however, having confronted with the exposition of law in Indore Development Authority (supra), they have suddenly changed their course and sought to plead the "

25.

As a sequel of the aforesaid, as regards the plea of nullity of award, it is held that validity of award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894, consequential action of taking possession of the land under Section 16 of Act of 1894 and vesting of same in the State Government is not dependent on compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894 which deals with Payment of compensation. In the scheme of the Act, the effect and consequence of non(compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 is provided in Section 34 of Act of 1894 i.e., payment of interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum. In no eventuality, does non( compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 would render the award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894 a nullity or affect the vesting of land in the State Government in any manner.

26.

As far as the plea of lapsing is concerned, no declaration as regards the lapsing of acquisition proceedings can be made as none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 are fulfilled since the possession of the land stands duly taken by recording Rapat no. 20 dated

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 23 2023:PHHC:121453-DB 05.09.2005 and the compensation amount as awarded originally stands duly tendered. Even the Counsel appearing for petitioners does not dispute the fact that aspect of lapsing is covered against the petitioners in view of exposition made in

27.

Before parting with the judgment, there is yet another aspect which requires consideration is "essentiality" of the land in question. As stated in para No. 9 of the reply, the land of the petitioners affects the site of 24 mtr. road, 12 mtr road and 6 mtr road as per the development plan. This shows that the land is very much viable for the public purpose for which it was acquired, thus, even considering the pre(eminence of the public purpose; present petition deserves to be dismissed as a litigant cannot be allowed to stall the development process for years altogether. 28.

As a sequel of the discussions made herein above, the instant petition is hereby dismissed and the pending application, if any, shall also meet same fate.

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) 21.07.2023 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No