Held that Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 does not apply where an award was passed and possession taken. Dismissed petition seeking declaration of land acquisition lapse for unauthorized possessor.
None. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10902 of 2018
Petitioner :- Asloom Khan @ Asloob Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh,Akhilesh K. Dwivedi,Sanjeev Singh,Vishnu Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ambrish Shukla,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by Additional Principal Secretary rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act 2013 (In short Act of 2013). The further prayer is to declare the acquisition as lapsed in reference to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and accordingly not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the land of Khasra No.136M. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition earlier also.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short Act of 1894) was not passed within two years of the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Thus, the acquisition should have been declared as lapsed in the first round of litigation itself.
In any case, the petitioner made a representation pursuant to the liberty given by the court to seek declaration of acquisition as lapsed pursuant to Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The claim has been rejected despite the fact that the petitioner is in possession of land in dispute. The prayer is to set aside order passed by the respondent with a declaration that acquisition has been lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
2
We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Perusal of the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 16.02.2018 after a direction by the court in the earlier litigation by the petitioner, it has come that the possession of the land of Khasra No.136M measuring 0-13-6 bigha has already been taken. So far payment of compensation is concerned 1/4th amount was deposited towards the share of the one land holder and remaining 3/4th amount of compensation was deposited for Suresh w/o Jagan Singh, Kannu Mistry etc. So far the petitioner is concerned, he is not title holder of Khasra No.136M but tried to possess the land unauthorisedly.
The entire land of Khasra No.136M is otherwise in possession of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (In short NOIDA). It has also come on record that an award under Section 11-A to the Act of 1894 was passed on 26.04.2011 followed by transfer of the land in favour of the NOIDA Development Authority. The amount of compensation was deposited in the court of Additional District Magistrate on 21.08.2015 and 05.08.2015 when it was not accepted.
The lapse of of acquisition has not been sought in reference to the provision of Act of 1894 but the Act of 2013 and it is more specifically under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. For ready reference Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is quoted hereunder:-
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. –(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—
3
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. ”
Section 24(2) specifically referred by the petitioner does not provide lapse where an award has already been passed under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894 prior to coming into the effect the Act of 2013. It is when possession of the land was taken by the authority and even payment was offered and then deposited with the court of District Magistrate in favour of the land holders.
The award was declared under Section 11-A is of the year 2011. The acquisition was not declared as lapsed by this court in the earlier Writ Petition No.35808 of 2016 decided on 03.08.2016. The claim to seek acquisition as lapsed has been sought now in reference to the Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and not in reference to the Act of 1894.
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would not apply to a case where award under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894 was declared followed by possession of land with offer and deposition of
4
amount of compensation. The petitioner is not otherwise title holder of the land in question. The allegation against the petitioner is for encroachment of the acquired land, thus, we do not find a case in favour of the petitioner to declare the acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 piyush
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 when an award was passed and possession taken.
Whether the petitioner, alleged to be an unauthorized possessor, is entitled to declaration of lapse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Asloom Khan @ Asloob Khan
State Of U.P.
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
