Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Rashpal Singh and Ors. - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-5546 of 2016 (O & M)
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Act of 1894, Act of 2013 - Section 24(1)(a), Section 24(2) - The court held that no lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made. The word 'or' in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 between possession and compensation should be read as 'nor' or 'and'. The remaining 20% of compensation should be released to the landowners with interest accrued within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The government acquired land for the extension and development of an aerodrome and a cargo complex. The landowners sought compensation under the Act of 2013 as no award had been made under the Act of 1894.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no lapse of proceedings occurred under the Act of 1894 as compensation had been paid and possession of the acquired land had been assumed, even though no award had been made. The court ordered the release of the remaining 20% of compensation with interest accrued to the landowners within four weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 had lapsed and if the landowners were entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made. The word 'or' in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 between possession and compensation should be read as 'nor' or 'and'.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the impugned orders were maintained and affirmed. No costs were awarded.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since both the writ petitions relate to a common relief, besides relate to a common impugned order Annexure P-8. Therefore, they are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.
Factual Background.
2. Admittedly through notification No. 10/6/99-4T(3)/4308, dated 31.03.2000, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Civil Aviation (Annexure P-1), the petition lands became acquired, for a public purpose, relating to the extension and development of Rajasansi Aerodrome into an International Aerodrome, and also relating to the setting up of a full-fledged Cargo Complex, at village Schinder (H.B. No. 346) and Heir (H.B.No. 347), Tehsil Amritsar-II, District Amritsar.
3. Admittedly, the said notification became issued in terms of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 1894”). The notification for acquisition, as revealed by Annexure P-1, and also as admitted in reply filed to the instant petition by co-respondents No. 2 and 3, thus was made, through recoursing being made to the provisions, as, contemplated in Section 17 (2) of the 'Act of 1894'. It is also admitted besides is revealed from the impugned Annexure P-8, as appended to both the writ petitions, that the determined compensation, thus became released to the land owners concerned. Moreover, earlier to the institution of the instant petition, the writ petitioners, had admittedly filed Civil Writ Petition No. 23429 of 2014, before this Court, and the said writ petition through an order drawn thereons, on 17.11.2014, became disposed of with the hereinafter extracted order.
Learned counsel submits that petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents to decide the petitioners' representation expeditiously.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.”
4. However, in pursuance to the above direction being made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-II, the latter declined relief on the said representations of the petitioners, thus through his making Annexure P-8, whereby the petitioners are led to re-motion this Court through the instant writ petitions.
5. The reason as meted in Annexure P-8, for non-drawing, an award in terms of Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894', is grooved, in the factum, that 80 per cent of the compensation had been determined through an award made on 10.05.2001, and also became rooted in the factum, that the said determined compensation became released to the claimants, besides possession of the acquired lands also became assumed. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioners, that they were yet entitled to, compensation to be determined, thus in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013'), but obviously became rejected. The provisions (supra) of the 'Act of 2013' are extracted hereinafter.
(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 Lan
No lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made.
The revised award passed after the expiry of two years from the date of Declaration was deemed to be a fresh award, and the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11-A of Act, 1894. The c....
Compensation in land acquisition must adhere to statutory requirements, including formal awards under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, or provisions of the updated Act of 2013 apply.
Land acquisition - No notice was issued to the writ petitioners before compensation amount was deposited by way of revenue deposit, the same would not result in compensation being payable in terms of....
The physical possession of the land and tendering of compensation discharge the state's obligation, and the land essential for public purpose cannot be released from acquisition.
The proviso to S.24 of the 2013 Act applies to awards made within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement, entitling beneficiaries to compensation under the 2013 Act.
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
