Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.
Barkha Ram And Other - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 30077 of 2017 in CWP No. 30078 of 2017 and CWP No. 30079 of 2017
Decided On : 01-02-2022
Land Acquisition - Release of Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 9, Section 11, Section 18, Section 24(2) - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking quashing of acquisition proceedings and release of land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court held that possession of the land was taken, compensation amount was available for disbursement, and the landowner failed to prove residence on the land prior to acquisition. The court also noted that the earlier challenge to the acquisition had been concluded, and the speaking order on the representation had attained finality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of notifications and release of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner claimed ownership and residence on the acquired land and invoked Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that possession of the land was taken, compensation amount was available for disbursement, and the petitioner failed to prove residence on the land prior to acquisition. The court also noted that the earlier challenge to the acquisition had been concluded, and the speaking order on the representation had attained finality.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the petitioner's claim of ownership and residence on the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possession of the land was taken, compensation amount was available for disbursement, and the petitioner failed to prove residence on the land prior to acquisition. The court also noted that the earlier challenge to the acquisition had been concluded, and the speaking order on the representation had attained finality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking quashing of acquisition proceedings and release of land under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
JUDGMENT
Augustine George Masih , J. - By this order, I propose to dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.30077, 30078 and 30079 of 2017 as they relate to same acquisition proceedings and issues involved therein are the same. Counsel for the parties have consented for disposal of these writ petitions by a common judgment and have referred to the pleadings in CWP No.30077 of 2017, titled as Barkha Ram Vs. State of Haryana & others.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of notification dated 11.03.1981 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act), notification dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and award No.9, dated 12.09.1986 (Annexure P-3) and supplementary award No.1, dated 27.05.1987 (Annexure P-3A) with a prayer for release of their land as per Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act).
3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that in the year 1962, residential plots were allotted to the residents of the village within the Lal Dora but due to shortage of land within Lal Dora, five residents including the father of the petitioner, were allotted plots outside the Lal Dora. Father of the petitioner was allotted khasra/Plot No.218, measuring 10 marla (1/2 share) situated in village Devi Daspura, Hadbast No.361, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, outside the Lal Dora, which is the land in dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised construction and built double storey house on the said plot and is residing therein with his family.
A notification dated 11.03.1981 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued by the Government of Haryana for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial for Sectors 5 and 7 under Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Thereafter, notification dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued to acquire the land for the above purpose including the land of the petitioner. After about two and half year, notices under Section 9 was issued to the land owners including the petitioner to appear on 04.08.1986 for stating the nature of their respective interests and amount and particulars of their claims for compensation. Thereafter, award No.9 was announced on 12.09.1986 (Annexure P-3). Before the announcement of the said award, land owners of the five plots, had approached this Court by filing CWP No.3943 of 1986 for quashing of notifications referred to above. During the pendency of the said writ petition, a supplementary award No.1 was issued on 27.05.1987 (Annexure P-3A). On 14.09.1993, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which judgment was challenged by filing LPA No.885 of 1993 and during the pendency of the said LPA, 2013 Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. In the light of the said 2013 Act having come into effect, petitioner along with other land owners withdrew their LPA on 04.09.2015 with a liberty to file a representation to the respondents under the 2013 Act.
On 04.09.2015, petitioner/land owners filed their representation, which ultimately was decided by the respondents on 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) by passing a speaking order. Petitioner has attached a copy of written statement filed by the respondents on 08.01.1987 (Annexure P-9) in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner i.e. CWP No.3943 of 1986 to substantiate the fact that the respondents have themselves admitted that the land in question is a gair mumkin bara and four sub-standard rooms in the shape of farm house were already built. It was also mentioned in the said written statement that a supplementary award in respect of the building structures and trees will be announced soon as the assessment in respect of these aspects was not received by them from the technical experts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
The fulfillment of conditions regarding possession and compensation is crucial in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under 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.
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....
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.
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
