High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/414/2018dismissed

Dalip Singh 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. 414 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 29.03.2022 Date of Decision: 31st August, 2022 Dalip Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Present:7 Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep K 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 12.08.2003 and 10.08.2004 respectively; followed by the award dated 08.08.2006, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land for Residential and Commercial Sector 49750 Part Gurugram; qua the land of the petitioner 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 the Supreme Court of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in

!, penultimate paragraphs thereof are reproduced here in below:7 "# $ % & '

('( & ) % &

& % & % *+ %

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

& & '

('-(% & % *

& % / % - * 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 ##= 3.

That 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, the 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 Act of 2013.

As per the case put forth by the petitioner, he is owner of the land comprised in Khasra no. 17//25/2 (1717), situated in Village Fatehpur, District Gurugram. He has constructed a shop and godown on the land in question for his personal use prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 of Act of 1894. The said land was acquired by the Government of Haryana by issuing of notifications dated 12.08.2003 and 10.08.2004 under Section 4 & 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by award dated 08.08.2006 for the public purpose namely, for development and utilization of land for Residential and Commercial Sector 49750 Part Gurugram. It is the case of the petitioner that despite having announced the award on 08.08.2006, the respondents have failed to take the possession of the land in question as they are still in the possession of said land in question. As

regards the compensation, it is the stand of the petitioners that neither the compensation has been paid to them nor it has been deposited in the Reference Court till date. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as possession of land has not been taken by the State till date. 5.

Per contra, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent7State of 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 to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings is to prove that the land owner is in possession of the land in question, which the petitioner has failed to prove as the possession of the land in question was taken by the State by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 597 dated 08.08.2006, and same has been held to be a valid mode of taking possession.

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 the petitioner has not received the amount voluntarily and is at liberty to receive the same. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the 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 petitioner in the instant petition has claimed to be in the physical possession of the land in question. Positive case set up by the petitioner is that even though the award was passed on 08.08.2006, yet the physical possession has not been taken from him. 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. 597 dated 08.08.2006 which has been held to be 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. A reference in this regard is made to the following paragraphs from the judgment:7

! "

#$ %& !

( "

$% * +) ,

( "- "

" ! "

$%."

)

/ ."

! )

" &

)

) )

" 0 & ."

! !

% %& + ) ) &

& %

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

? &2 ) % 3, +

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

&%& &

- % %)& - &2&

& )

" ") )

( Thus, the plea of the petitioner of being in physical possession of the land in question is wholly mis7conceived and is liable to be rejected. $-#%& !($&!-$+&('$.( %"!&)&*+% ($&/!

(%&)%.%) 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 the compensation amount was tendered and was made available to the petitioner and other landowners. Therefore, 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:7

2*+ & !

' (

+ $ %

3 3

" 4

@) +& % - ) ) -&,% - , 3 & & - % %

3, - "

" )

+ ++$! "

5 "

)

" ) "

+ %

)

) " )

+) !

* * +

6 "

7 8 "

) " ,

+ $%)

@) +& ) ,

+ - & *+

& 6 "

7 8 " )

+ 9 !) ."

1 5 Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no compensation amount has been received by them is meritless and thus, is hereby rejected as the amount of compensation was tendered which is sufficient to construe that the compensation amount was made available to the petitioner. Accordingly, second contingency required for seeking lapsing of acquisition under section 24(2) of Act of 2013 is also not fulfilled. $&%$'( % $&)($& #.% .0%)&% ($&12314$'( % ($' 1567!.%'+"'""%) 9.

The 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 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:7 2 - 8 " 5

$%) !

&")

)

* +

" & ) "

( ") '

( "

( ' ( ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,

* - :; 7 & <

- =##)8

> 8 "

) ,

(

"" " - !

@ '$ +% - !

)

" - ")3 3 3 33 3- =, 4

3 3

$ %!

) " ! ! 3- ) 3& ,

(

) 6-&9673 ) !

" 3 )3 3

-) )

) ! !

)

! !

- " " ,

7 )*** $ %-) !)

)

& !

3 3 ! !

" !

" " !

& "

" -

"" " " !

" ,7 )***5 $ 0% & ."

@ - "

A- " &"

(

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

+ &2 &,

#1 10.

In the case at hand as reflected from the reply filed, it is evident that after the award was announced on 08.08.2006, the physical possession was taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 597 dated 08.08.2006 and the compensation amount was duly tendered. Since 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 petitioner to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.

%&(!"( $'( %"!&)&*+% ($& 11.

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 as Residential and Commercial, Sector 49750 Part Gurugram. The land in question is very much essential to achieve the public purpose as it has to be planned 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.

12.

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 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 present petition merits dismissal and hence, the instant petition is dismissed.

13.

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) 31st August, 2022 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No