Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sujit Narayan Prasad and Subhash Chand, JJ.
Shankar Mahato and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
L.P.A.No.210 of 2018
Decided on 11.4.2023
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) read with Section 17 – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once land has been acquired and vested by State it is upon State to utilize the land since after its vesting in Government, it becomes absolutely free from all encumbrances and land can also be acquired for public purpose can be utilized for other public purpose also – Compensation in lieu of acquisition of land has been paid to ancestors of writ petitioners – As such, saving clause as per provision of Section 24(2) will not be applicable and proceeding initiated way back in year 1958-59 will be said to be conclusive – After delay of about 53 years such grievance has been raised – Writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and laches – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 17 to 20)
(B) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction – Delay comes in way of equity – Writ court is required to weigh explanation offered and acceptability of same – As a constitutional Court it has a duty to protect rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches Court at his own leisure or pleasure, Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not – In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for litigant who knocks at doors of Court – Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on part of a litigant – Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to lis – Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. (Para 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—
I.A.No.1844 of 2022
The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.
4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1844 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 64 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A.No.210 of 2018
6. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4109 of 2014, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the land acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59 which was initiated by issuance of a notification under section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”) for acquisition of 24.78 acres land situated in Mauza-Saraidhela, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand (hereinafter called the said land) on two ground i.e., that the land has not been used for the public purpose for which it was acquired and secondly prayer has been made to restore the land on the basis of the new Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2013”), which contains a provision as under 24(2), has been dismissed.
7. The briefs facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:
A land acquisition proceeding, being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59, was initiated by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 for acquisition of 24.78 acres of land situated in Mouza-Saraidhela within the District of Dhanbad and subsequently, an area of 24.75 acres of land was declared to be acquired under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. The land of the petitioners was also acquired under the said acquisition proceeding and now they are claiming for restoration of their land.
8. It is evident from the materials available on record, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition that the land in question has been decided to be acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894. The State Government initiated a proceeding for acquisition of land being L.A. Case No. 11 of 1958-59. The proceeding of the aforesaid acquisition case was concluded and thereafter compensation has also been paid as per Award prepared in Land Acquisition Case No.11 of 1958-59.
The petitioner has raised the grievance that the land has not been taken by the State and as such in view of saving clause of the Act, 2013 i.e., 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the proceeding which was initiated under the old Act i.e., the Act, 1984 will be set at knot and a fresh land acquisition proceeding is required to be initiated under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Second ground has been raised that the land which was acquired for a particular purpose but the same was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and hence the land be restored in favour of raiyats.
The grievance of the writ petitioner having been not redressed at the end of the State Government, therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4109 of 2014 has been filed. The learned Single Judge, after calling upon the State and taking into consideration the fact that the acquisition proceeding was initiated way back in the year 1958 basis upon which the amount of compensation, as determined in the acquisition proceeding, has been paid, hold that there is no question of applicability of the Act, 2013 by taking aid of Section 24(2) thereof and refused to entertain the grounds for restoration of land on the ground that once the land has been acq
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 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....
Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should not be available to litigants who have obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring a....
The petition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 must meet the gap period of five years, and the physical possession and compensation tender must be valid. The essentiality of the land for public ....
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....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
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
