Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ravi Shanker Jha, Arun Palli, JJ.
Onkar Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 24547 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate, for the Respondent.

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 compensation must not be fulfilled. The court clarified the interpretation of the obligation to pay compensation and the mode of taking possession, emphasizing that the obligation is complete by tendering the amount to the landowner.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 24(2) - Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, highlighting the conditions for lapsing of acquisition proceedings, the obligation to pay compensation, and the mode of taking possession. The court clarified that the physical possession and payment of compensation must both be fulfilled for lapsing to occur. It also emphasized that the obligation to pay compensation is complete by tendering the amount to the landowner, and the word 'paid' does not include depositing compensation in court. The court further stated that the period of interim orders passed by the court should be excluded in the computation of five years, and Section 24(2) does not give rise to new cause of action to question concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
Fact of the Case:

The land was acquired for development and utilization as residential and commercial area for Sector 15, Jagadhari. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation. They also argued that the land had not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the physical possession of the land had been taken and the compensation amount was tendered, thereby discharging the State's obligation. It also held that the land was essential for achieving the public purpose. The court dismissed the petition, stating that none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were fulfilled, and the pleas raised by the petitioners were barred by delay and laches.
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation, and whether the land had been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, which clarified the conditions for lapsing of acquisition proceedings, the obligation to pay compensation, and the mode of taking possession. The court emphasized that both the physical possession and payment of compensation must be fulfilled for lapsing to occur, and that the obligation to pay compensation is complete by tendering the amount to the landowner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the physical possession of the land had been taken, the compensation amount was tendered, and the land was essential for achieving the public purpose. It held that none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were fulfilled, and the pleas raised by the petitioners were barred by delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. - The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 02.05.2001 and 30.04.2002 respectively; followed by the award dated 27.04.2004, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 15, Jagadhari; qua the land of the petitioners; has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Further, challenge has been made to the speaking order dated 10.11.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013.

2. Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, like many other writ petitions, the proceedings in the instant petition were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 whose penultimate paragraph is reproduced herein below:-

'....1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined under theprovisions ofAct of 2013.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period offive years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) ofthe Act of2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013