Allowed

Chandawali Pipe Industries v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2014CWP/10384/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because possession was not taken due to a court stay over five years after the award. Consequently, the acquisition was declared void, notifications were set aside, and the petitioner was to be released from the land, with restrictions on alienation for one year to allow for potential re-acquisition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notifications, the 1998 Award, and the 2006 rejection order are set aside; the petitioner is released from the landed property; the acquisition is declared lapsed.

Chandawali Pipe Industries Vs State of Hry. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 10384 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2014.

¶5

Chandawali Pipe Industries

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the reports or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶19

CM No.6671 of 2014

¶20

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

¶21

subject to all just exceptions and additional affidavit of Dinesh Sharma, one

¶22

of the partners of the petitioner-firm, is taken on record.

¶23

CM stands disposed of.

¶24

CWP No.10384 of 2006(O&M)

¶25

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:28 The controversy in the instant case pertains to acquisition of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶27

[2]

¶28

petitioner's land measuring 67 Kanals 12 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The above-stated land was put into acquisition vide notifications dated 12.05.1995 and 10.05.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was announced on 06.05.1998 (except for the land measuring 15 Kanals where the factory and other buildings were constructed). Learned State counsel, however, states that subsequently the award was announced qua that exempted property also.

¶29

[2] It may be mentioned here that the petitioner earlier approached this Court vide CWP No.7169 of 1998 (Annexure P37) and CWP No.7122 of 2000, which were disposed of by this Court with the direction that petitioner would represent the competent authority and his claim for release of the land from acquisition shall be considered by the Secretary, Department of Urban Estates, Govt. of Haryana by giving him an opportunity of personal haring. It was further directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in his possession for a period of two weeks from the date when final order would be passed.

¶30

[3] The petitioner's claim for the release of his land was rejected by the Secretary, Urban Estate, Haryana vide order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexuer P1), which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶31

[4] It may be mentioned here that when this writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, the following order was passed on 14.07.2006:-

¶32

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a factory

¶33

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶35

[3]

¶36

belonging to the petitioner has been existing since 1963 within the revenue estate of Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabagarh, District Faridabad. It is submitted that the Administrator, HUDA, vide letter dated 10.07.2004 (Annexure P6) had recommended for the release of 60 kanals of land belonging to the petitioner. However, despite the recommendation,this land has not been released.

¶37

It is further argued that land of the various land owners, whose factories, are also running in the same Sector has been released.

¶38

Notice of motion for 18.09.2006.

¶39

Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.”

¶40

[5] The above-mentioned interim stay order is operating till date.

¶41

The petitioner has admittedly continued in physical possession of the acquired land by virtue of the above-mentioned interim stay order passed by this Court in the first round of litigation as well as vide the above reproduced order.

¶42

[6] In this undisputed factual backdrop, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act')?

¶43

[7] The aforementioned question is no longer res-integra . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 07.05.2014 rendered in

¶44

Civil Appeals No.5478-5483 of 2014, Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶46

[4]

¶47

and others, has interpreted Section 24(2) of 2013 Act in the context of those cases where State could not take possession of the acquired land due to interim stay orders passed by court(s) and meanwhile, the 2013 Act has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. In the cited decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶48

“ 4. Limitation

¶49

As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to cases where awards were passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1.1.2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the Act, to avoid any ambiguity. Since this legislation has been passed with the objective of benefiting the land-losers, this interpretation is consistent with that objective and also added as a matter of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation challenging an award cannot be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has elapsed or not. If the possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid due to the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, the pendente lite period will be included to determine the five year period and including such period if the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, then the said acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have elapsed and fresh proceedings, if so desired, will have to be initiated in accordance with the new Act.”

¶50

The objects and reasons of the Act 2013 and particularly clause 18 thereof fortify the view taken by this court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Clause 18 thereof reads as under:

¶51

“The benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken .”

¶52

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶53

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶54

[5]

¶55

(Emphasis added)

¶56

20. However, the aforesaid appeals have to be decided in the light of above settled legal propositions. The admitted facts of the case remains that the Respondents-Tenure Holders had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894 as admitted in the affidavit filed by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Land Acquisition), Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, filed in January 2014 before this court. The award no. 15/87-88 had been made on 5.6.1987 and possession has not been taken till date though compensation has been deposited with the Revenue Department, which cannot be termed as 'deemed payment' as has been held in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (Supra). ”

¶57

[8] The respondents have admittedly not taken possession of the acquired land in the instant case, of course, due to stay order passed by this Court. The award indisputably was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014 i.e., the date when the 2013 Act came into force coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not received any compensation also till date. We are of the considered view that there is no other conclusion but to hold that the principle of inclusion of pendente lite period expounded in Shiv Raj and others' case (supra) is, thus, squarely applicable in the instant case.

¶58

[9] The concept of pendente lite having been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the acquisition of petitioner's land is declared to have lapse. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned notifications dated 12.05.1995 and 10.05.1996, the award dated 06.05.1998

¶59

qua the petitioner as well as the impugned speaking order dated 09.06.2006 Singh Omkar(Annexure P1) insofar as the same pertains to the petitioner's land are set 2014.07.11 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶60

CWP No.10384 of 2006

¶61

[6]

¶62

aside. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty re-acquire the subject property in accordance with law and provisions of 2013 Act.

¶63

[10] Having held that, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the land was acquired for the regulated development. As a consequence of the lapse of acquisition, if the petitioners succeed in changing the nature of land or if they create third party rights, it is likely to be detrimental to the 'public interest' as several basic amenities like roads, sewerage or park etc. would also be adversely affected. We, thus, restrain the petitioners from alienating and/or changing the nature of their released land for a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. No construction shall be raised by the petitioners on their respective sites and the District Administration shall ensure that nature of the land is not changed by anyone.

¶64

[11] The aforesaid period of one year has been fixed so as to enable the State authorities to consider and re-acquire the subject land in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act, if need be. If no fresh acquisition takes place during the period of one year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to utilize their land in the manner as may be permissible under the local laws.

¶65

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶66

May 26, 2014. ‘om’

¶67

( LISA GILL ) JUDGE

¶68

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Chandawali Pipe Industries v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandawali Pipe Industries v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vs State of Hy.

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sudesh Goyal Vs Ut Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Sanjit Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.