Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 936
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
State of Haryana and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sunder Lal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5754 of 2019, SLP (Civil) No. 28807 of 2018
Decided On : 22-07-2019
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Landowner cannot apply for release of land after possession is taken and compensation collected by him.
There is no concept of negative equality.
Party not coming to the court with clean hands is not entitled to any indulgence.
Headnote:
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - Landowner cannot apply for release of land after possession is taken and compensation collected by him. (Para 19)
(b) Constitution of India - Article 14 - No concept of negative equality - Respondent claiming parity with neighbouring lands which have been released in 2006 and 2014 - Respondent cannot take advantage of his wrong. (Para 20)
(c) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Respondent not coming to Court with clean hands - Not entitled to any indulgence. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
The respondent herein filed a writ petition in the year 2015. He has set up the case that he owned the land measuring two Kanal. The same was acquired and the award was also passed. Compensation has been obtained. However, the acquisition has lapsed as per provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the possession has not been taken. He has constructed residential houses and shops.
The High Court has allowed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
Acquisition has attained finality, the award was passed, compensation was collected and possession was taken long back in the year 2003.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved in the present matter is whether possession of land has been taken after passing of award on 21.7.2003 in land acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification dated 24.8.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land measuring 189.93 acres for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 57 of Gurgaon inter-alia at village Tigra. On the date of passing of award, according to appellants, possession had been obtained and handed over to the representative of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’) vide Rapat No. 583. The compensation has admittedly been collected by the respondent vide cheque no. 191045 dated 31.7.2003.
3. The respondent herein filed a writ petition in the year 2015 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. He has set up the case that he owned the land measuring two Kanal. The same was acquired by the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award was also passed. Compensation has been obtained. However, the acquisition has lapsed as per provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’), as the possession has not been taken. He has constructed residential houses and shops.
4. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has held that the two constructed rooms existed admeasuring 15’ x 12’ and 18’ x 12’ with boundary wall in Khasra No. 16//23/1/2(20). Though the State has claimed that the possession had been taken, there is no proof that the respondent was physically dispossessed. The Act of 2013 has come into force on 1.1.2014. The State may, if needed, acquire the property again for a public purpose. The development has not been undertaken so far. Owners of such land/property are entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013. Direction has been issued to Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon to determine the total amount to be refunded by the respondent within one month. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana.
5. Dr. Monika Gosain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that possession had been taken. She has attracted the attention of this Court to the Rapat dated 21.7.2003. She has further submitted that in several decisions, this Court has held that mode of taking possession is by way of drawing of panchnama on the spot. Admittedly, compensation has been paid to the respondent in the year 2003 itself. The acquisition has attained finality and encroachment made thereafter is not going to help the respondent.
6. Mr. Siddharth Mittal learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there were two rooms in existence, of which possession has not been taken following the law. Paper possession cannot tantamount to taking physical possession. The physical possession remains with the respondent. As such as mandated by the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the acquisition has lapsed. He has further submitted that ‘the Policy for Return of Unutilized Land’ has been framed under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2017 and notified on 14.9.2018, by the State Government. He has also submitted that on two sides of land in question in the case of similarly situated landowners, the State Government has already passed release orders on 30.10.2006 and 21.2.2014. The respondent cannot be discriminated with. He has also attracted the attention of this Court to the photographs (Annexure R6) and the site plan (Annexure R5).
7. The first question to be examined is whether possession had been taken over by the State Government and handed over to HUDA. Rapat of possession dat
