Allowed

Pyare Lal v. Haryana State

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2014CWP/4789/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act as awards were passed over five years ago, possession was never taken due to stay orders, and the pendente lite period was relevant. Lapses and irregularities in taking possession were established.

What did the court decide?

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied; notifications and award set aside; acquisition declared lapsed; State to re-acquire within one year; petitioners restrained from alienating or constructing.

Pyare Lal Vs Haryana State — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 1999(O&M) Date of Decision: May 21, 2014.

¶5

Payare Lal (deceased) through LRs and others

¶6

...... PETITIONER(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶9

2. Civil Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1999(O&M) . Ram Kishan and others ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

3. Civil Writ Petition No. 16084 of 1999(O&M) . Jai Lal and another ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ...... RESPONDENT (s) 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 6178 of 2000(O&M) . Jeet Ram (deceased) through LRs ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶11

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶12

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶13

[2]

¶14

5. Civil	Writ Petition	No.	11879 of 2000(O&M).
Samar Singh and others		......	PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others		......	RESPONDENT (s)
6. Civil	Writ Petition	No.	11936 of 2000(O&M).
Jai Bhagwan and others		......	PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another		......	RESPONDENT (s)
7. Civil	Writ Petition	No.	12143 of 2000(O&M).
Rohtash Singh and another		......	PETITIONER(s)
	Versus
State of Haryana and others		......	RESPONDENT (s)
8. Civil	Writ Petition	No.	13748 of 2000(O&M).
Surender Kumar and others		......	PETITIONER(s)
	Versus
State of Haryana and others		......	RESPONDENT (s)

¶15

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

¶16

Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Singhal, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Vir Singh, Advocate; Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate; Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate; Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate;

¶17

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶19

[3]

¶20

Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate; Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate; Ms. Monica Thakur, Advocate; and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶21

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP No.12143 of 2000). Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 (in CWP No.6178 of 2000).

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

To be referred to the reports or not?

¶25

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? *****

¶26

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶27

CM No.6271 of 2014 in CWP No.4789 of 1999

¶28

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions and the legal representatives of deceased-petitioners No.1 and 2 as per the details given in paras 2 and 4 of the application are brought on record as petitioners.

¶29

The amended memo of parties is taken on record.

¶30

CM stands disposed of.

¶31

CM No.6368 of 2014 in CWP No.4789 of 1999

¶32

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions and documents at Annexures P16 and P17 are taken on record

¶33

CM stands disposed of.

¶34

Main

¶35

This order shall dispose CWP No.4789 of 1999; CWP No.1286 of 1999; CWP No.16084 of 1999; CWP No.6178 of 2000; CWP No.11879 of

¶36

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶38

[4]

¶39

2000; CWP No.11936 of 2000; CWP No.12143 of 2000 and CWP No.13748 of 2000 as the petitioners in all the cases have laid challenge to the same set of notifications dated 08.09.1997 and 07.09.1998 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of acquisition of their land. The award is stated to have been announced on 06.09.2000.

¶40

[2] In CWP No.4789 of 1999, the dispossession of petitioners and the demolition of construction which was existing on the suit land was stayed by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2001.

¶41

[3] In CWP No.1286 of 1999, the dispossession of petitioners was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2000.

¶42

[4] In CWP No.16084 of 1999, vide order dated 05.01.2001 the status quo regarding possession was directed to be maintained by this Court.

¶43

[5] In CWP No.6178 of 2000, vide order dated 30.08.2000 directions were given to the Collector not to pronounce the award with respect to the land of the petitioner.

¶44

[6] In CWP No.11879 of 2000, vide order dated 01.11.2000 respondent -authorities were directed not to demolish the petitioners' houses or take possession till further orders.

¶45

[7] In CWP No.11936 of 2000, the dispossession of petitioners was stayed by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2000.

¶46

[8] In CWP No.12143 of 2000 and CWP No.13748 of 2000 the status quo regarding possession of the petitioners as existing on that day was directed to be maintained by this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2001.

¶47

[9] The above-mentioned interim stay orders are operating till date.

¶48

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶49

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶50

[5]

¶51

[10] 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')?

¶52

[11] 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:-

¶53

“ 4. Limitation

¶54

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

¶55

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶56

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶57

[6]

¶58

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.”

¶59

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:

¶60

“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 .”

¶61

(Emphasis added)

¶62

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). ”

¶63

[12] The respondents have admittedly not taken possession of the acquired land in the instant cases, of course, due to stay orders passed by this Court. The award was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014 when the

¶64

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶65

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶66

[7]

¶67

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.

¶68

[13] The concept of pendente lite having been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the acquisition of petitioners' land is declared to have lapsed. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned notifications dated 08.09.1997 and 07.09.1998 and the award dated 06.09.2000 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 2013 Act.

¶69

[14] The explanation given by the respondents in some of the cases is that no award could be passed due to interim orders of this Court staying further proceedings were in force, would also have no bearing on the applicability of the abovesaid decision as in that case Section 24(1)(a) of the Act would apply and, thus, again the acquisition proceedings shall be taken to have lapse.

¶70

[15] We are, however, refraining ourselves from observing though learned State counsel has produced lay out plan of Sector 43 (Part II), Gurgaon where the different partials of the land of the petitioners are located.

¶71

[16] However, keeping in view the larger public interest, namely, the fact, i.e., the petitioners have been given free hand to utilize their released land, would result into the disruption of regulated urban development, we restrain the petitioners from alienating and/or changing the nature of their 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

¶72

Deputy Commissioner and other law enforcing agencies of the District shall

¶73

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶74

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶75

[8]

¶76

ensure that nature of the land is not changed by them.

¶77

[17] The aforesaisd 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.

¶78

[18] In all fairness, learned State counsel has urged that in some of the cases, writ petitions have been filed after passing of the award and in all such cases, the possession of the land was already taken as soon as the award was passed.

¶79

[19] We, however, not impressed with the above contention for more than one reasons. Firstly, there is no convincing material on record to show that the physical possession of the land was taken by the respondents immediately after passing of the award. There appears to be only an entry in the official record with regard to possession in the same manner as was found out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti

¶80

Lal Aggarwal and others, ( 2011) 5 SCC 394 .

¶81

[20] Secondly, vide CM No.11480 of 2003 filed in CWP No.13748 of

¶82

2000, the respondents -State themselves have averred as follows:-

¶83

“ 4. To the best of the knowledge of the applicant/answering respondent, order of stay of dispossession is operating in favour of the petitioners and therefore, State authorities are unable to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. In this view of the matter, now it has become necessary to move this application with the prayer of early hearing. Because of stay of dispossession in the

¶84

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶85

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶86

[9]

¶87

aforesaid Writ Petition, the development proceedings have come to an half and have ultimately affected the public purpose.

¶88

5. Since other connected writ petitions have been decided by this Court upholding the notification, the aforesaid writ petition can also be disposed off keeping in view the findings given in the CWP No.11880 of 2000 and CWP No.332 of 2001. However, record of acquisition proceedings can be produced at the time of arguments.

¶89

That Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2000 was admitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Hon'ble Division Bench has passed an order staying the dispossession in favour of the petitioners. The State authorities are unable to develop the said land for the residential and commercial purpose as the stay of dispossession has been ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in favour of the petitioners and the same is continuously in operation till date, therefore, it becomes necessary for the respondents to file the present application with the prayer to early hearing as the land was acquired for the development of Sector 26, 27, 28, 42 and 43 Gurgaon .”

¶90

[21] Thirdly, in every case dispossession of the petitioners was stayed or status quo was directed to be maintained after hearing the respondents. Admittedly, the sites in dispute have not been utilized for any public purpose.

¶91

[22] The petitioners, on the other hand, have produced enough material including photographs to argue that they are still in physical possession of the acquired site.

¶92

[23] We are unable to accept the contention of the learned State counsel that no sooner the award was passed, the actual possession of the acquired land

¶93

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶94

CWP No.4789 of 1999 and connected cases

¶95

[10]

¶96

was taken by the authorities. It was imperative upon the respondents to produce the relevant office record like the one explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶97

in Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2011 (5) SCC

¶98

386 , to show that actual physical possession of the acquired land was taken and retained prior to passing of interim orders by this Court.

¶99

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶100

( LISA GILL ) May 21, 2014. JUDGE ‘om’

¶101

Singh Omkar 2014.07.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Pyare Lal v. Haryana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyare Lal v. Haryana State

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

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

Mitlesh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Metro Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mam Raj Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balwan Singh Lohan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.