Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 2199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ravi Shanker Jha, Arun Palli, JJ.
Hoshiyari Devi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 9938 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General Haryana, for the Respondent.

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 conditions of physical possession and compensation payment must not be fulfilled. The judgment also emphasizes the need for concrete evidence to support claims of discrimination.

Headnote:
Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition - Act of 2013 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED: Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013)] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and whether it provides a right to question the legality of proceedings undertaken decades back. The court analyzed the factual matrix of the case, including the physical possession of the land, compensation payment, and the plea of discrimination. The court referred to the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others to interpret Section 24(2) and concluded that both the conditions of physical possession and compensation payment must not be fulfilled for the acquisition proceedings to lapse. The court found that the physical possession was taken, and the compensation was tendered, thus rejecting the claim of lapsing of acquisition proceedings. The plea of discrimination was also rejected due to lack of concrete evidence. The court upheld the speaking order and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash acquisition notifications and claimed that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under section 24(2) of Act of 2013. They also alleged discrimination in the release of land from acquisition. The court analyzed the factual matrix, including the physical possession of the land, compensation payment, and the plea of discrimination.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the physical possession of the land was taken, and the compensation was tendered, thus rejecting the claim of lapsing of acquisition proceedings. The plea of discrimination was also rejected due to lack of concrete evidence. The court upheld the speaking order and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under section 24(2) of Act of 2013 and whether the plea of discrimination was tenable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both the conditions of physical possession and compensation payment must not be fulfilled for the acquisition proceedings to lapse. The court rejected the claim of lapsing of acquisition proceedings as the physical possession was taken, and the compensation was tendered. The plea of discrimination was also rejected due to lack of concrete evidence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the speaking order and dismissed the petition.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, Chief Justice (Oral) - Besides the applicability of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as Act of 2013), the issue posed before us to answer is as to whether Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 provide an arm or tool to question the legality of proceedings undertaken decades back on any ground including of discrimination; in clear ignorance of the delay and laches on the part of the land owner which otherwise disentitle him/ her to seek the relief being prayed for.

2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved, we deem it appropriate to notice certain elemental facts of the case in hand as pleaded before us by the respective parties. Vide the instant petition filed in the year 2016, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the acquisition notifications issued under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1894') dated 04.01.2002 and 31.12.2002 respectively; followed by the award dated 29.09.2004, thereby acquiring the land for public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Transport/ Communication situated in the revenue estate of Village Bohar, Hadbast no. 68 and Village Para, Hadbast No. 67, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Sector 4 and 5 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Besides the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Zonal Administrator, HUDA -cum- Additional Director Urban Estate Rohtak, in compliance of the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by this Court in CWP no. 19228 of 2014. Additionally, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to declare that the acquisition proceedings in question have lapsed qua their land, in view of deeming fiction postulated under section 24(2) of Act of 2013; by claiming that in their case neither the physical possession has been taken nor compensation for the land acquired has either been paid/ tendered to them or deposited in the Reference Court under section 31 of Act of 1894.

3. The perusal of the factual matrix as stated by the petitioners reveals that by filing the instant petition even though predominantly the plea of lapsing as provided under section 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been taken to secure the release of their land from acquisition but besides thereto, they have chosen to take all the pleas including discrimination questioning the legality of acquisition proceedings undertaken decades back.

4. In view of the above the question arises as to whether by virtue of section 24(2) of Act of 2013, a landowner/ litigant gets a right to seek condonation of delay and virtually set at naught the inaction on his/ her part to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court at the time when the alleged cause of action, if any had actually accrued.

Pleadings in the petition

5. The petitioners have claimed in the petition that they are owner in possession of land measuring 48 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 72//14 (7-11), 17/1 (4-0), 15/2 (2-5), 9/2 (6-0), 10 (8-0), 11 (7-11), 12 (7-11) and 13 (7-11) situated within the revenue estate of Village Para, District Rohtak. It has been stated that their land along with the land of other land owners was sought acquired by the State of Haryana by issuance of notification under section 4 of Act of 1894 dated 04.01.2002 as against the issuance of notification under section 4 of Act of 1894, the petitioners claimed to have filed objection under section 5-A of Act of 1894 but as stated, the authorities adopted pick and chose policy and released the land of some influential persons so much so the vacant land measuring 53 Acres was released. The land of the petitioners was included in the declaration issued under section 6 of Act of 1894 dated 31.12.2002. It has fu