Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
SITA RAM – APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10532 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012)
Decided On: 25-11-2014
(2014) 3 SCC 183; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2014) 6 SCC 589; (2014) 6 SCC 586; Civil Appeal No. 8700 of 2013 – Relied upon
(2001) 7 SCC 545; SLP (C) No.15645 of 2008 – Referred
(b) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 114(1) – Repeals land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 114(2) making Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but subject to the provisions in the Act – By legal fiction u/s 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid, deemed to have lapsed – Period of stay or injunction not excluded. (Para 19, 20)
2014 (10) SCALE 388 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant started his factory for manufacturing fireworks in the year 1990 at Village Kasar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and was granted a licence by the Chief Controller of Explosives for storage of explosives under the Explosives Rules, 1983 framed under the Explosives Act, 1884.
Initially, the appellant got permission for manufacture of fireworks of 1700 kgs. but later on the Department of Explosives granted licence to the appellant’s firm for storing 2 lakh kgs of fireworks in the magazine situated at the appellant’s land.
The Department of Explosives, Government of India, granted amended permission for possession and sale of fireworks to the extent of 2 lakh kgs at magazine situated at village Kasar, District Rohtak, Haryana.
On 24.01.2001 the Government of Haryana issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for acquisition of land of villages Kassar, Sankhol, Jhakhodha and Saidpur, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, District-Jhajjar including land measuring 71 Kanals owned by the appellant for the purpose of development of area.
Part of the appellant’s land was released from acquisition. The remaining part of the appellant’s land that was not released from acquisition was acquired whereas land belonging to other industries such as M/s. Rockwell Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s H.B. Plastics Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rocklight Chemicals and Resins Pvt. Ltd., M/s Prag Auto Products Ltd. were released from acquisition and these industries were even given permission for change of land use.
The appellant filed Civil Writ Petition before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
Appeal deserves to be allowed.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
When acquisition proceedings are completed and an award is made more than five years before the commencement of the relevant Act (2013 Act), and compensation has not been paid, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed (!) (!) .
The period of stay or injunction granted by courts does not exclude or pause the calculation of the five-year period for proceedings to lapse (!) .
The legal fiction under the relevant section of the 2013 Act considers proceedings initiated under the earlier land acquisition law to have lapsed if the award was made five or more years prior to the new Act's commencement, provided compensation has not been paid or land possession has not been taken (!) (!) .
The actual physical possession of the land and non-payment of compensation are critical factors in determining whether proceedings have lapsed under the 2013 Act (!) .
The deposit of compensation amount in court or government treasury does not substitute or equate to actual payment to the landowner for the purpose of proceedings not lapsing (!) .
The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act clarifies that any stay or injunction does not extend or alter the five-year period for proceedings to be deemed to have lapsed (!) .
The lapse of proceedings can be established based on the passage of time, non-payment of compensation, and the absence of land possession, independent of other procedural or stay orders (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes the importance of timely payment and actual possession in preventing proceedings from lapsing under the 2013 Act (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance regarding this document.
JUDGMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 9710 of 2003 dismissing the Writ Petition.
The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-
3. The appellant started his factory for manufacturing fireworks in the year 1990 at Village Kasar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and was granted a licence by the Chief Controller of Explosives for storage of explosives under the Explosives Rules, 1983 framed under the Explosives Act, 1884.
4. Under the Explosives Rules, it is mandatory to maintain open radial safety distance of 71 meters from all sides around the magazine storing 2 Lakh Kgs. of fireworks. The letter dated 05.03.2001 was issued to the appellant’s firm by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Faridabad, stipulating that 71 meters of safety radial distance must be maintained from all sides of the magazine storing 2 Lakh kgs of fireworks. The explosive rules further mandate that land of 71 meter radius around the magazine should also be free from construction for the continuance of the explosive license.
5. As per document Annexure P-9-H dated 28.05.1990, it appears that the permission was granted to store the explosives only to the extent of 1,700kgs. So far as the requirement for keeping 71 meters of mandatory safety distance, it is applicable only in cases where permission has been granted to store explosive to the extent of 2 lakh kgs. This fact is evident from the document P-9-Q.
6. A letter dated 05.03.2001 was issued by the Department of Explosives. Initially, the appellant got permission for manufacture of fireworks of 1700 kgs. but later on the Department of Explosives granted licence to the appellant’s firm for storing 2 lakh kgs of fireworks in the magazine situated at the appellant’s land. The said letter dated 5.03.2001 is written to M/s Gupta and Co. and it states thus:-
“Adverting to your letter dated 2.3.2001, it is clarified that minimum land required for a firework factory having 6 processing sheds may be computed as follows as required under the Explosive Rules, 1983. The magazine accommodating 2,00,000 kgs of fireworks should observe radial safety distance of 71 mts. From all sides.”
7. Vide letter dated 27.10.1999, the Department of Explosives, Government of India, granted amended permission for possession and sale of fireworks to the extent of 2 lakh kgs at magazine situated at village Kasar, District Rohtak, Haryana which reads as under :-
“Licence No.E.25(11) 51 dated 31.03.1992 is hereby amended for possession and sale of fireworks (Class 7, Divn. 2 sub-divn. 1 &2) – 2,00,000 kgs. from your magazine at village Kasar, Distt Rohtak (Haryana).”
But as stated above, the land in question is necessarily required as per the mandate of Explosive Rules.
8. On 24.01.2001 the Government of Haryana issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for acquisition of land of villages Kassar, Sankhol, Jhakhodha and Saidpur, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, District-Jhajjar including land measuring 71 Kanals owned by the appellant for the purpose of development of area.
9. Objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act for release of the appellant’s land was considered and found to have merit and part of the appellant’s land was released from acquisition. Following the same, the notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act, under which the remaining part of the appellant’s land that was not released from acquisition was acquired whereas land belonging to other industries such as M/s. Rockwell Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s H.B. Plastics Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rocklight Chemicals and Resins Pvt. Ltd., M/s Prag Auto Products Ltd. were released from acquisition and these industries were even given permission for change of land use. It is argued that the respondents thus had adopted a pick and choose policy, which is a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
