Allowed

Raj Kumar Jain etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2014CWP/2188/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the 1990 and 1993 acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act due to the pendency of interim stay orders. The impugned notifications and award were set aside, but the State was granted a one-year window to re-acquire the land under the new Act. Petitioners were restrained from altering the land's nature.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notifications and award set aside; acquisition declared lapsed; State restrained from re-acquiring land without consent but granted one year to initiate fresh proceedings under 2013 Act; Peti

Raj Kumar Jain etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.2188 of 1993

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 2188 of 1993(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2014.

¶5

Raj Kumar Jain and another

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHUAHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶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

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to notifications dated 30.03.1990 and 27.03.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by the award dated 24.03.1993. The land of the petitioners has been acquired vide the notifications and award under challenge.

¶20

Singh Omkar 2014.06.03 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.2188 of 1993

¶22

[2]

¶23

[2] This Court while issuing notice of motion on 25.02.1993 ordered for maintaining the status quo with respect to possession.

¶24

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

¶25

[4] In this undisputed factual backdrop, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are 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')?

¶26

[5] The aforementioned question is no longer res-integra . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 07.05.2014 rendered in Civil Appeals No.5478-5483 of 2014, Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj 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:-

¶27

“ 4. Limitation

¶28

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

¶29

Singh Omkar 2014.06.03 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CWP No.2188 of 1993

¶31

[3]

¶32

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.”

¶33

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:

¶34

“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 .”

¶35

(Emphasis added)

¶36

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). ”

¶37

The respondents have admittedly not taken the possession of the

¶38

[6]

¶39

Singh Omkar 2014.06.03 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

CWP No.2188 of 1993

¶41

[4]

¶42

acquired land, of course, due to stay order passed by this Court. The award was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014 i.e., the date when the 2013 Act came into force. The petitioners have not received any compensation also till date. The principle of inclusion of pendente lite period expounded in Shiv Raj and others' case (supra) thus is fully applicable in the instant case.

¶43

[7] In view of the interpretation given to the pendente lite by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the acquisition of the petitioners land is declared to have lapse. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned notifications dated 30.03.1990 and 27.03.1991 and the award dated 24.03.1993 qua the petitioners are set aside. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty re-acquire the subject property in accordance with law and provisions of the 2013 Act.

¶44

[8] Having held that, it cannot be overlooked that the land was acquired for the regulated urbanisation of Rewari City. 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 the 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 the petitioners.

¶45

[9] The aforesaid period of one year is being granted to the State authorities to enable them to consider and re-acquire the subject land in

¶46

Singh Omkar 2014.06.03 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶47

CWP No.2188 of 1993

¶48

[5]

¶49

accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act, if need be. If no fresh acquisition is carried out during the period of one year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to utilize their land in the manner as may be permissible as per the local laws.

¶50

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶51

May 16, 2014.

¶52

( MAHAVIR S. CHUAHAN ) JUDGE

¶53

‘om’

¶54

Singh Omkar 2014.06.03 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kumar Jain etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Jain etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

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

Gurbakhsh Singh Vs Union of India &Ors

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Virinder Kumar Vs Chandigarh Administration Thru Advisor etc.

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Champu Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.