Chattar Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others
Chattar Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
!
Mahavir Prasad and others
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" !
Anil Goel and another
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
!#$
Balram and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
# !
Kiran Sehgal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
!!
Rambir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$ !!#
Randhir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
! !"
M/S Navin Bharat Woolen & Cotton Industries & another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
!
Harish Chand and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#
Hari Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
!"
Kuldip Lal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$
Sat Dev and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" !!
Chhote Lal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#!
M/S Gupta Stone Crushers through Suresh Chand, etc.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana, etc.
...Respondents
# #
Raj Unocal Lubricants Limited and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#
Raj Pal Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$ $"
M/S Capital Stone Crushers
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
! $#
M/S Kundli Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
M/S Arora and Associates
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Jagdish Chand
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#
M/S Kundli Agro Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Opinder Singh Virk and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana, etc.
...Respondents
" !"
M/S Royal Agro Industries
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
"$
Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
# #
Hukam Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana, etc.
...Respondents
$##
Yash Pal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$ $#$
Raghubir Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
! $""
Ram Sarup Saini
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$#$$
Seema Sarin
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
"
!
Suresh Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" $
M/S Anand Buttons Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" !""
Vijay Goel and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
""
Bharam Pal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" !$
M/S Sarvi International and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
"# "!"
Hawa Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" "!"
Parveen Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
"$ !
Satbir Tanwar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
"! #$!
Naresh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" #! #
Manoj and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
! #
Harish Pal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#
Dhan Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
# "
Ajit Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
" # !
Dalel Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
#
Satpal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
# # $
Sandeep Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
# $
Chet Ram and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
$ # $
Dharambir and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
! $ #
Mohinder Pal Singh Bhatia and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana, etc.
...Respondents
$"$ #
Pawan Kumar Sharma and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: %&'() $* # + ,- .../ - ,- . ..
Present: 5 Mr. Rupinder S. Khosla, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.S. Mamrat, Advocate, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate Ms. Sunita Punia, Advocate Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional AG, Haryana Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for HUDA(in CWPs569245 8220582215825758444588425884558923592455129625 15962575595733157567575775810658334521104 and 8746 of 2014.) Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Advocate for HUDA (in CWP52110452014) Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for HUDA (in CWP52408952014).
Mr. Satish Singla, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for HUDA (in CWP5151852015).
Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for HUDA (in CWPs58444588425884552014).
Mr. Rishab Gupta, Advocate for HUDA (in CWP No.294852015) Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for HSIIDC (in CWP110675 2014) Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for HSIIDC Mr. Amit Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP No.1108452014).
Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP5948352014).
Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP52578952014).
Mr. A.P.Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP51110252014) .. * This judgment shall dispose of above writ petitions, as the questions for consideration raised in all these petitions are similar.
The main contention of the petitioners in these petitions is that the proceedings for the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as "the L.A. Act") have 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 (hereinafter referred to as the "RFCT Act") The claim is based on the premise either that they are in physical possession of the land or that compensation has not been paid to them and in some cases both conditions are said to exist.
For decision of all these cases, the illustrative facts are being taken from CWP No.6924 of 2014.
The petitioners have sought quashing of the notifications dated 8.3.1989 and 7.3.1990 (Annexures P53 and P54) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein, for short `the Act'), as also the consequent Award dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure 55), whereby, their land has been acquired by the respondent - State of Haryana. The petitioners are owners in possession of plots/houses situated in Khasra No.16/10 & 16/11 measuring 15 Kanal 11 Marlas situated in village Kadipur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Respondent No.1 5 State of Haryana vide notification dated 8.3.1989 (Annexure P52) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 7.3.1990 (Annexure P53) under
Section 6 of the Act acquired their land for the purpose of developing residential and commercial area Sectors 9, 95A and 10 at Gurgaon under the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977. The notifications were challenged by the petitioners by filing CWP No.7876 of 1990 before this Court, which was dismissed along with a bunch of writ petitions vide order dated 25.7.2000 (Annexure P54). Thereafter, respondent No.2 - Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure P55).
The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that they are in physical possession of the land and no compensation has been paid to them. In such circumstances, in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein for short `the 2013 Act'), the notifications in question have lapsed. The scope and interpretation of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act has been considered by this Court in # .012&3 .(4)353& 316 )7 87 .&3&( 3)9313 6(%26(61&4 39* #.
After a detailed reference to the case law, it was held that the acquisition proceedings lapse even if one of the contingencies mentioned in Section 24(2) exists, namely either physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid. The Court also decided the
question as to when can the compensation be said to not have been paid and when can it be said that physical possession of the land has not been taken.
In the said case, before starting to analyse the legal provisions the Ld. Bench observed as under:
! "
# $ %
& '(
#
# ' )*+! #$%',"
- .
& %
/
, In some of the present petitions, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have consented that their cases be referred to the Committees set up for the purpose with a direction to the Committee to look into the representations to be filed by the
petitioners expeditiously within a time bound manner. The 18 petitions, where the Ld. Counsel have so consented are as under:
(1) CWP5844452014,
(2) CWP5968852014,
(3) CWP51095152014,
(4) CWP51266252014,
(5) CWP51596252014,
(6) CWP52110452014,
(7) CWP52408952014,
(8) CWP52506252014,
(9) CWP52506352014
(10) CWP52506852014,
(11) CWP52506952014
(12) CWP52507052014,
(13) CWP52507152014,
(14) CWP52507952014,
(15) CWP542752015,
(16) CWP5151852015,
(17) CWP5294852015 and
(18) CWP5964752015 In the remaining petitions, the petitioners have reservations about their cases being referred to the Committees. Their objections are mainly the following:
(i) The respondent5 authorities in their written statements having admitted the factum of the compensation not having been paid or the possession not having been taken or both, a reference to the Committee is not necessary and the petitions are liable to be allowed straightaway on the basis of the admission.
(ii) Section 24(2) creates a deeming fiction in favour of the landowners that where one of the contingencies specified therein exists, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. Where a deeming fiction is created, a declaration from a competent court is mandatory to conclusively
establish the rights of any party to the lis. (iii) The notification constituting the Committees is illegal, is against the provisions of the 2013 Act read with the provisions of the 1894 Act as well as in the teeth of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) The Committees have been apparently constituted in pursuance of various orders of this Court vide which the petitioners have been directed to file representations before the appropriate authority within a specified time and the Authority shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking orders in accordance with law. The orders of the High Court cannot vest the Committees so constituted with any powers to pass any declaratory decree in favour of or against the landowners.
(v) The notification constituting the Committees does not lay down the relevant guidelines to be followed by the Committee while making recommendations/ passing orders with regard to the rights of the landowners.
(vi) The members of the said Committees who are executive officers are not eligible and also not equipped in law to decide contentious issues of facts and return findings thereon.
(vii) The Draft Rules dated 14.10.2013 framed under the RFCT Act, have proposed the constitution of an independent Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR) for hearing of such disputes. In the absence of finalization of such disputes by the statutory authority under the Act, only the writ court can fill up the lacuna. No other authority has jurisdiction to do so,
nor can such a jurisdiction be conferred upon it. (viii) The composition of the Committee is detrimental to the protection of the rights and interests of the land owners.
(ix) The Hon'ble Court in
!" has held that the said Committees are only for convenience and a party cannot be compelled to approach the same. The Court also observed that the decision of the Committee would not be binding on the landowners/ persons interested in the land sought to be acquired. In view thereof sending the cases to the Committee would be a futile exercise and only result in waste of time.
We have minutely examined the aforesaid objections of the petitioners and are of the view that the apprehensions and objections raised by them regarding reference to the Committee are without merit.
In our view, these petitions need to be decided and disposed of in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
!" (supra) The prefatory observations of the Division Bench have already been quoted above. The Division Bench noted the pendency of about a thousand petitions, wherein, similar issues had been raised. It decided to hear only three petitions leaving the parties to obtain orders in the other petitions in accordance with directions issued in that case. The petitioners in those cases agreed that the findings of facts as to whether the proceedings have lapsed or not in view of the Section 24(2) of
the Act would be given by the Authorities in each case, in the light of the law laid down by the Court. It was also directed that the parties in the other cases may obtain appropriate orders from the other Benches as per roster in accordance with the judgment.
Regarding the issue of compensation having been paid or not, the Division Bench noted as under: "+
0
1
%
-
%
,
2
! "
#$%', Regarding the issue of physical possession, the Court concluded as under:
+3
! "
! "'4%
%56 * 7
)*8 4 /
%5 6 778
)*
%
! "
%
2
,
2
,
! "9
'
9
! "
#$%'
,
9
1
+:.
(
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
'
'
; < =
# ;
9 = ; = .
9
! "
#$% ', The Hon'ble Court further took note of the notifications constituting the High Level Panel/ Zonal Committees to decide the representation of the petitioner and observed as under:
"8*!'"'
2 (
2
9
(
%
4'> 9
-
$ -
?
4 ' > 9 )) )*8 ?
- @ A ? . ' - .
-
.
& 5
! "
#$%'
.
&5
5
0
5 2
0 ( 0
5 9
- 9
5
( ' - (%
9
!/"'
45 9
? ' -
.
4 )*8
. - /
-
.
%
<
% 9
(
! "
#$% ' %0+
6
% 2
@ A ? ? -
1 1 -
B
'
00
'
?
@ A
<
9
)) )*8
(
?
@
A. 8 .
& 5
'
.
& 5 C
.
& 5
1
( , The Court noted that though the issue of payment of compensation may not involve much complexity, but the question whether physical possession has been taken or not is bound to involve substantial consideration especially an analysis of facts.
The Hon'ble Court also took note of the constitution of the Zonal Committees in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated by the Department or Urban Estates, Haryana and the manner in which their recommendations would be processed, initially in the Urban Estates Department, after which the department would sent its proposals to the Government for approval/ orders. The approval/orders received from the Government would be conveyed to the Zonal Administrator5cum5 Additional Director Urban Estates of the concerned zones, who would then pass appropriate speaking orders.
It needs to be emphasized that remitting the matter to the Committees is only for the purpose of deciding the questions of fact as to whether the compensation has been paid or the physical possession has been taken or not and consequently whether the claim under Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act, is made out or not. As noted by the Division Bench these facts are of considerable complexity and may involve leading of evidence in support of the claims.
In our considered view also, this is not a matter which may appropriately be decided merely on the basis of affidavits in writ proceedings as the petitioners who oppose reference to the Committees would urge.
The Committees would obviously be bound to make the above determination in the light of the principles as enunciated in the Division Bench judgment. The decision of the Committees would also be open to challenge at the hands of any aggrieved party.
The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that no reference to the Committees is required in cases where there is admission in the written statement about either the compensation not having been paid or possession not having been taken or both, and in such cases the declaration regarding the acquisition proceedings having lapsed ought to be given by the Court also cannot be accepted. The question as to in what circumstances can the compensation be said to have not been
paid or physical possession not been taken, has only now been settled by the Division Bench . It is not known whether the admission in the written statements have been made on a correct and proper appreciation of the legal and factual position. Now that the law on the subject has been settled, the Committees would be competent to arrive at a conclusion regarding the factual position after hearing the affected parties. This would not prejudice anybody.
The other objection that there is provision in the draft rules for constitution of `The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority' which will also have the mandate to hear disputes relating to the payment of compensation and application of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, and hence the cases be not referred to the Committees is also without substance. It is not the case of the petitioners that such an authority with the mandate to decide issues regarding applicability of Section 24(2) has been constituted and is functioning and hence reference to the committees bypassing the competent Statutory Authority is impermissible. Hence this objection need not detain us at present. If and when any such Authority is constituted, it would be open to the petitioners to raise the issue, as per law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, these petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the writ petitions
before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority. Till the matter is decided by the said authority, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. It is, however, made clear that in case no such representation is filed within the stipulated period as noticed above, the interim order shall cease to operate, thereafter.
../ - ..
%&'() $* # Atul