High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2709/2017dismissed

Naginder Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2022-08-31The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Arun Palli11 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2709 of 2017 (O&M) Reserved on : 29.03.2022 Date of Decision: 31 August, 2022 Naginder Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Present:6 Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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 instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 05.04.1990 and 04.04.1991 respectively; followed by the award dated 15.03.1993, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial and Industrial Area, Sector 18 Jagadhari; qua the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 95//22/1 measuring 4 Kanal 6 Marla situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar; has 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.

Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, like many other writ petitions, the proceedings in the instant petition were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

! whose penultimate paragraph is reproduced here in below:6 "# $ % & '

('( & ) % &

& % & % *+ %

%& % * & ) - ) )) %% .& , & - % & + &,

& & '

('-(% & % *

& % / % - * 0 ) "1 & '( - )

- "1 "1 0 % &2 &, & '(% & % * 3

& % % % &

& % & + % - 3&

- )+ & - 3+&

+ % &

- + - 3

4 4 % & '( % & % * & % &

& 0 &2& % 5

& '( & - ) & 6 % ,

-%&'

)( % %& %

&2 & % & % /

- &

&&&) %

& % *& - , & * % &2 & % / -% %

+ & *% & &-, 75 %&

'& (

% &2 &,&%5 ) &

6 % ,%% +&

& % * - 8 )8

% %& % &2 & % & % / 9 & - &

& * '

(% & %

/ + & &2 & '( 5 5 % &

& 0- , &

, & * '

()) % &&

), %& % , &

+ & & &2

&, & '( % & % * ! 0 & '(% & % *

- % & '( % & '

('-( : 0 % 3, & %

/ &

& '(-), %2 ; <&)- 3, & !% & % / +

& '(% & % *+& -

3 & '( / 0 % & '( , % % &,

&- & % & 3 &

%% -% & % * & %&+ &,% &2 , ) && 0 % - & % - & - .& &

& '(% & % * ,

)&%& 2 , %&&

&, % &2 &

&, , %%& % & % *+ + 5- & && &,

)

) 2 , % % 3,

&, % % &

% & &2 1 3.

The sum and substance of the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Supreme Court of India is that the first and foremost condition to seek lapsing 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 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 for the land owner to claim that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word "deposit" 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 of India 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 the Act of 2013.

As per the case put forth by the petitioners, they are owners of the land measuring 4 Kanal 6 Marla comprised in Khasra no. 95//22/1 situated in Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. The said land was acquired by the Government of Haryana by issuing of notifications dated 05.04.1990 and 04.04.1991 under Section 4 & 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by award dated 15.03.1993 for the public purpose namely, for development and utilization of land Residential, Commercial and Industrial Area, Sector 18 Jagadhari. It is the case of the petitioners that despite having announced the award on 15.03.1993, the respondents have failed to take the possession of the land in question, though they have received the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in

question stands lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Further the petitioners have placed reliance on several orders wherein the order declaring the acquisition proceedings to have been lapsed have been passed by this court.

Per contra Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) as none of the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled. The first and foremost requirement for claiming lapsing of acquisition proceedings is to prove that the land owner is in possession of the land in question, which the petitioners have failed to prove as the possession of the land in question was taken by the State by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 718 dated 15.03.1993, which has been held as a valid mode of taking possession. Further mutation no. 1941 dated 11.11.2003 has also been sanctioned in favour of the beneficiary department.

Once such possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the State and whosoever retains or remains in the possession of the land, he is a trespasser. He further submits that the obligation of the State to pay the compensation stands duly discharged as the entire compensation amount was tendered at the time of announcement of award and was made available to the landowners. He submits that out of total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,49,40,779/6, an amount of Rs. 1,37,14,372/6 has been disbursed to the land owners and rest of the amount is available for disbursement. Further, admittedly the compensation stands received by the petitioners.

Authority (supra) and thus same cannot be relied upon. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra) he has prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition.

Having heard the respective arguments, going through the respective pleadings and above all the exposition of Indore Development Authority (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason.

!"#$

$&$'( %"!&)&*+% ($& (!&) (!,%& 7.

The petitioners in the instant petition have claimed to be in the physical possession of the land in question. Positive case set up by the Petitioners is that even though the award was passed on 15.03.1993 and they did not challenge the acquisition proceedings yet the physical possession has not been taken from them. In this regard, the respondents have filed the written statement submitting that possession was taken by drawing panchnama in the form of Rapat Roznamcha No. 718 dated 15.03.1993 which has been held as a valid mode of taking possession of the land. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provides that after taking the possession of the land, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the physical possession of the land in question stands duly taken and land is vested in the State. The reference in this regard is made to the following paragraphs from the judgment:6

! " # # $ "

%% %%

$ #&$'( $)

(' $ * &

$ "$%% + $ $,$# $ # -"

$ # %

& $

-&($

% $ * &

&$ $ " %

%&$# $% -+

, #/"

%% %%

0$%(

-% # !1, $%

21 3" %%

/"'% $

%% %%

0%-% #4%%-(& #$#$, + "$

$&$ $) + "

%% %%

-+ ,

$ -$ "'% $"

%% %%

#, $ # ,

$ #

5- %$ -$"'% $"

%% %%

( $)

%% %%

$ ' &

$ $%$ 5- # $ # $ # $,$# $% (

"$%% #1 $ # %% $ * &

-&($

$ % + $ # $ %,"

%% %%

1$ '"

$ + "

%% %%

1 $ 1$% ( $ #$% %"$%% $ # $%

+ "

%% %% $ #, %% $

-&($

% 6 .

5- %

, $% % , % $ ' #

( ,

$) +"

%% %%

- # !$ # 3" %%

/"'% $"

%% %%

0-% #

% %& + ) ) &

& %

/ +- 3, & % 03, & % * ) 3, & %

> &2 ) % 3, +

3, & % < , &3 % ) )& &2+ >

&%& &

- % %)& - &2.

* &

%-""

% # %$ %# + "'% $'

-"'

%% %%

$% (

(' #$, + 5- % "

# +% ($ + "

%% %%

$ 1$ '- $ + $ # $ '

'%&$#

$ # % &

%$% -$

$ # %$% %# + - -% 1 1%#

& # ( %"$%%

$ #, "

%% %%

$ .

%% %%

%"$%% $,$'% - % (

$% $ * &

$% Thus, the plea being raised by the Petitioners of being in physical possession of the land in question is wholly mis6conceived and is liable to be rejected. $-#%& !($&!-$+&('$.( %"!&)&*+% ($&/!

(%&)%.%)!&) .% %0%) 8.

The respondents have categorically pleaded in the written statement that the amount of compensation for the entire acquired land was made available to all the land owners. It is the stand of the State that out of

total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,49,40,779/6, an amount of Rs. 1,37,14,372/6 has been disbursed to the land owners and rest of the amount is available for disbursement. This shows that the compensation amount was duly tendered, and same also stands received by the petitioners. 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 here in below:6 82 .

, # /"$#0

2 $ # ,

-# % $&( 3" %%

9# "

% #9

- :

% $

( %$# ( "$'&

&$# $ # ,

% :

% %

( + "

# & "$'&

?) +& % - ) ) -&,% - , 3 & & - % %

3, 4 # $- # "

-1 $('% &$) "$'&

%- #

%2$ #22, $#(

#-"

(' $ # ,

- % %$'$$-$( +% 1

# "

% ,

-1 -%&$) + # "

% - #

2 &$ #$ ' " # % + $& - % * &

- %1 %

) +$ $ $ #%1 -

1 - # "

%%1 $

+ % $ 6 "

&"$ # - #

21 , % "$ &$ $

! 2

2%"$ &$ $ %

! 2 , $% %&$ $ % $% (

# <

$& - %

# "

% # =

, $%-'$%$+$ % $& "

% #, %

$% (

# &$) "$'&

% " # #

21 % ( "$# ?) +& ) ,

+ - & *+

& <

$%%-& + # "

% =

- % $)

( &$ #$ '1 $ $%

% $% , $% %"

# %

2 > , 1 $ 5-%

# + $

$"% #-

7# "

The afore6stated facts clearly reveal that the observations made here in above did not leave any scope for doubt that the State has discharged its obligation towards making the compensation for the land acquired. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no compensation amount has been received by them is meritless and thus, is hereby rejected. Thus, second contingency for claiming the lapsing of acquisition proceedings is also not available to the petitioners.

$&%$'( % $&)($& #.% .1%)&% ($&23425$'( % ($' 2678!.%'+"'""%) 10.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indore Development Authority (supra) 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 happen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that word "or" occurring in Section 24

(2) of the Act of 2013 must be read as "and/nor". Relevant paras from the judgment are reproduced here in below:6 8 4 % -;%

%# # ,1 $% +$#%

, #% -% #

1 ,

%$ (

" % ( #.-%1

% %$% #1 %

$"% 1$ #% + $' ,% &

! $# , " %

2 ' " $

, -#

$ + $ %-% .$ $"$1 - " $

, %"

%5-$ #('/ 0%-% #1

/ 0% -# ( $#$%/

0 /$ #0 3333 3333 3333 3333 4 ?% =$

##$% &$$& $ # .

4 #$$ #%1$

% -

(% # $ $ ,

3" %%

/ 0$% ( $#$%

B-

$ #

% ( $-% %&-%( - #4,$% (% #C /2 4 % $ $ , #% & $ $&$ %

$-% %

#( - #4 %- $ $% 19 9 $'& $ %9 99 94

3 # :

& $ +% , # 9%+

$%9 "$

# $ +, & , #%1 "$% % $-% %( ,

, %$ $ $ 94% $% %$ #1 9.

$ $ 3" %% # (' / 0 %

&"$%% # (' " 3 + % & &( $## + $ $%1 $%%

$ # $# <4.><=9

, - 9 19 9 $

$ % $ $ $ 41 1 %

( -% % $ $&$

, + , $ $ %1 $ '

, &$' (

, - ( +

%# #$$4 %- $ $% &-%( #$$"

# +=%1 $ ( &"

% # 41 , 1 %

(

& % #

, # 9 9 ( ,

$-% % , -#

%" $#

+$ -

$-% , +.%- +$&&$%

#%"- 4 %- $ $%

% ( $-% %&-%( - # $ # %-, -#( $ "

$'$ $ ( &"

% #

#=%1; 6 .

5- %

& % %C 4% %

( -%$

+$ $ $&$

D4%

&% -%$ %

%$ $&$ %

%-(%$

%$$

$ "

%$( $( $"

$' .$%$"

+$ %&"

0 &"$%%%-"" # 0+ % % &2 &, )+ & '(%- - 3+ + & 3+ &

+ &2 &,

#1 11.

In the case at hand as reflected from the reply filed, it is evident that after the award was announced on 15.03.1993, the physical possession was taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 718 dated 15.03.1993 and the compensation amount was duly tendered and deposited in the reference Court as well. Therefore, since, none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, said provision cannot be relied upon by the Petitioners to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.

%&(!"( $'( %"!&)&*+% ($& 12.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, on the strength of the facts pleaded in the written statement, has vehemently contended that the State acquired the land

for the public purpose for utilization of land for development as Residential, Commercial and Industrial Area, Sector 18 Jagadhari. The land in question is very much essential to achieve the public purpose as it affects the development of road and plots as per the layout plan. We have considered this part of argument raised by the respondents and we are in complete agreement with the same as this is an important factor to be kept in mind while dealing with the case arising out of the acquisition of land to achieve the public purpose and it is the state/its authority who is in the best position to decide about utilization of the land acquired, after it having been vested in State.

13.

As a sequel of the above discussion and in view of 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 payment of compensation 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. 14.

Having dismissed the main writ petition, all pending applications, if any also meet the same fate. The writ petition is dismissed. Status quo if any stands vacated. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) 31 August, 2022 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No