SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 25

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
The State of Haryana & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sushila & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9205 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No.23446 of 2022) (@ Diary No.29159 of 2021)
Decided on : 13-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Ms. S. Harini, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.

Headnote:

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – As possession was taken over by acquiring body and was handed over to beneficiary, any possession by petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and encroachers cannot be permitted to take benefit of provisions of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 and pray that as now they are in possession, may be as encroachers, they are entitled to relief under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 – It would be giving premium to illegality and encroachers which cannot be intention of Legislature – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable and accordingly set aside. (Paras 3, 4, 4.1 and 5)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, State of Haryana has preferred present appeal.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Original writ petition filed by the private respondents – original writ petitioners, stands dismissed accordingly.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the State of Haryana has preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land in question has not been paid to them and even the possession of the lands in question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor the compensation for the acquired land has been paid.

2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was specifically disputed that the possession of the acquired land was not taken over. It was also the specific case on behalf of the appellants herein that as such the original writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers after the notification under Section 4 dated 26.08.2003 there was no question of any compensation to be paid to them. It was submitted that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers had no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings more particularly to pray for lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant part of the written statement read as under:

    “1. That the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition before this Hon’ble court because the petitioners were not owners of the acquired land at the time of the notification under section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6 dated 10.08.2004. The gram Panchayat of village Nathupur was owner of the land bearing khasra no. 155 (170), 156/1(038), 156/3(11817). The petitioners were tenants in the land in dispute as per the revenue record. The petitioners become owners of the land in dispute vide order dated 24.05.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High court in Regular Second Appeal no. 1578 of 1990 and Civil Misc no.3568C of 2006. Immediately thereafter the petitioners no’s 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18 sold their land in dispute to the other person i.e. Dharmpal son of Paras Ram vide sale deed no’s. 8637 dated 4.7.2006 and mutation no. 2218 dated 09.08.2006 was also sanctioned in favour of vendee. The sale of the land by the petitioners was well before the announcement of the Award no. 8 dated 04.08.2006. So the petitioners are not entitled to file the present petition against the acquisition proceeding after disbursement of compensation and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with the cost on this ground.

    xxx xxx xxx

    3. That the total compensation amount of the awarded land is Rs.76,32,858/. The compensation of the acquired land was not paid to the petitioners because the petitioners no. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18 were not owners of the acquired land on the date of passing the Award and other land owners did not give their consent to receive the compensation amount of the acquired land and did not provide any documentary proof to prove their ownership and as such undisbursed amount, is lying deposited in the account of the LAC, and is available for payment immediately on demand of actual land owners on the date of passing the Award.

    xxx xxx xxx

    10. That the contents of Para no. 10 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that the award of the land in dispute was announced on 04.08.2006. It is specifically denied that the petitioners are in physical possession of the acquired land. It is submitted tha


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top