IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Ram Gopal Yadav S/o Shri Ganga Ram Yadav & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14306, 12012 of 2015
Decided on : 04-02-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 6, 9, 11A and 24(1)(a) – Land - Payment of compensation - Respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for industrial area - Said notification was published in two widely circulated daily newspapers - In addition, said notification was also locally affixed on site - In response to said notification, objections were filed by petitioners under Section 5A of Act of 1894 before LAO and same were duly considered by LAO - Declaration was issued under Section 6 of Act of 1894 for area and same was affixed locally on site as well as published in two widely circulated newspapers - Final Award of crore approximately incorporating additional amount of compensation under provisions of Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency - In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 was passed - Amount of Award was sent by RIICO to LAO, vide cheque and out of total compensation as stated payment of compensation to tune of crore approximately has been disbursed to 221 Khatedars out of 234 Khatedars as per available records which amounts that almost 94% of total compensation has already been given to the Khatedars - Whether Section 24 revives stale and barred claim" where the Apex Court – Held, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the acquisition proceedings are also illegal and bad because procedure required for issuance of notice Section 9 of Act of 1894 has not been followed and that publication of declaration done issued under Section 6 of Act of 1894 has not been published in two prominent daily newspapers - Further, award passed by LAO suffers from non- application of mind and that land in question is not acquired by private company - Court are unable to accept the submission on behalf of the landowners that it is by operation of law proceedings are deemed to have lapsed and that this Court should give full effect to the provisions - It was submitted that lapse of acquisition proceedings was not contemplated under the Act of 1894, and there is departure made in Section 24 of Act of 2013 - Thus, Section 24 gives a fresh cause of action to the landowners to approach the courts for a declaration that acquisition lapsed, if either compensation has not been paid or physical possession has not been taken - This Court is of the view that in present case, in the facts and circumstances, proceedings of land acquisition have not lapsed, same are legal, objections under Section 5A of Act of 1894 were duly considered, the act of respondent for public purpose was justified and therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed specifically when 94% of Khatedars are compensated and 90% area is under physical possession - In the light, all applications stand dismissed - Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners have preferred instant writ petitions praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 01/07/2015 passed by the respondent no.4-Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred as 'LAO') in so far as the same relates to land of the petitioners having been acquired by the State Government for respondent No.3-Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'RIICO') for development of Industrial Area, Kishangarh Phase-VI.
2. For the sake of brevity and as the instant two writ petitions invoke the same cause of action and controversy on similar facts and identical questions of law, the same are being decided together and the same may be read as mutatis-mutandis. The lead file in the case is SB Civil Writ Petition No.12012/2015.
3. The respondents issued a notification dt. 14/06/2012 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1894') for acquisition of the land measuring 541.07 Bigha, situated in village Sanwatsar, Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer for industrial area Kishangarh Phase-VI.
4. The said notification dated 14/06/2012 was published in two widely circulated daily newspapers on 14/07/2012. In addition, the said notification was also locally affixed on the site on 19/07/2012.
5. In response to the said notification, objections were filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 before the LAO and the same were duly considered by the LAO.
6. On 04/06/2013, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 for the area measuring 541.07 Bigha and the same was affixed locally on the site on 02/07/2013 as well as published in two widely circulated newspapers on 03/07/2013. On 01/07/2015, final Award of Rs.67.52 crore approximately incorporating additional amount of compensation under the provisions of The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013) was passed. On 31/08/2015, the amount of Award was sent by the RIICO to the LAO, Kishangarh vide cheque No.011878 and out of the total compensation as stated above, payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.63.37 crore approximately has been disbursed to 221 Khatedars out of 234 Khatedars as per the available records which amounts that almost 94% of the total compensation has already been given to the Khatedars. It has also come on record that on 05/02/2016, possession of area measuring 176.02 Bigha; on 31/03/2016, possession of area measuring 217.19 Bigha and on 14/06/2018, possession of 49.02 Bigha was taken by the State and handed to RIICO. It is also important to state that on 28/03/2016, the LAO deposited the rest of the award amount in the reference court. So, the facts suggest that entire amount of compensation has been duly disbursed in above terms and substantial possession out of 541.07 Bigha has been carried out. It is also to be considered that Kishangarh is a fast growing industrial area which is also called as Marble & Granite Mandi and not only in India but abroad, exports and domestic supplies are made. Recently, the Government has also acquired lands through their instrumentality like National Highway Authority of India, Indian Railways, Airport Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board to develop the said area as an industrial belt looking to non- availability of land for industries and close proximity to major cities of Rajasthan.
7. In this background, the above petitioners have filed these two writ petitions being aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings carried out by the respondents.
8. The submission of the petitioner is that in terms of the Act of 1894, on account of non-application of mind by the LAO, while considering objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, the acquisition proceedings were initiated. The LAO ignored to consider that the only source of li
Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar & Ors.: (2012)12 SCC 443
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2012)1 SCC 792
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors.: (2005) 7 SCC 627
Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2014)3 SCC 203
Union of India v. Shiv Raj & Ors.: (2014)6 SCC 564
Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria & Ors.: (1996)4 SCC 579
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (1997) 1 SCC 134
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613
Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Anr. (2018) 16 SCC 228
State of West Bengal & Others v. Debasish Mukherjee & Ors.: (2011) 14 SCC 187
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, emphasizing the conditions for lapsing of acquisition proceedings and the essentiality of t....
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
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.