IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, S.P. GARG, JJ.
ATTAR SINGH & ANR. - PETITIONERS
Versus
UOI & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 4721 of 2002, W.P.(C) 436 of 2003
Decided On : 13-07-2017
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act - Section 24(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of the acquisition of lands in village Pochanpur and village Holambi Kalan. The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, and the petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act due to non-possession of the land and non-payment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the suit lands had not been taken, and the facts of the case were covered by the ruling in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association, leading to the declaration that the acquisition of the suit lands is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act due to non-possession of the land and non-payment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the interpretations provided in the rulings of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association and Santosh Singh & Ors to conclude that the acquisition had lapsed.
Final Decision: The court declared that the acquisition of the suit lands is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. In these proceedings, the petitioners had originally sought for quashing of the acquisition of lands which are located at Revenue Estate of village Pochanpur and village Holambi Kalan. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 4721/2002 claim to be the owner of Khasra Nos.12/11(4-6), 12/1(3-7), 12/2(1-9), 19(4-16), 20/1(0-7), 22(4-16), 23/1(1-12) and 27(0-10) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Pochanpur, Delhi. The petitioner in W.P.(C)436/2003 claims to be owner of Khasra No.96/99/1 (4-2) and 99/2(0-14) of Rectangle No.96, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Holambi Kalan.
2. When these Writ Petitions were originally entertained, the court had granted status quo order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the properties.
3. In W.P.(C) No.4721/2002, the lands were sought to be acquired vide Notifications No.F.10(3)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 under Section 4 and declaration No.F.10(3))/96/L&B/LA/14062 dated 7.12.2001 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In W.P.(C) No.436/2003, Notification No.F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329 under Section 4 and declaration No.F.10(32))/96/L&B/LA/6752 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 22.08.2001 and 5.7.2002 respectively. This was followed up by the publication of Award No.18/03-04 dated 30.10.2002. The declaration issued under Section 24(2) confined to the petitioners’ land in both the matters. The acquisition proceedings terminated with the publication of Award No.30/2002-03.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 was enacted and brought into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. The petitioners confined their submissions for declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act. Section 24 of the said Act reads as follows:
“24.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
(a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) Where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the advent of the New Act and on account of the judgments of the Supreme Court, in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014, the petitioners were entitled for the declaration. The Supreme Court expressed its opinion as follows:
“8. 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime for compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new scheme for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families whose land ha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.