A writ petition regarding land acquisition that had lapsed. The High Court held that the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken five years before the Act's commencement.
The writ petition is allowed, declaring the acquisition of land in question has lapsed.
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.
CWP No. 11225 of 2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11225 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.11.2017
Smt. Bimla Devi and others
.. Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming that in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act'), the acquisition has lapsed, as the petitioners have neither been paid compensation for the acquired land nor possession thereof has been taken from them. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') were issued on 16.8.2001 and 14.8.2002, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 26.2.2004.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither
Sharmila Devi 2017.12.02 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 11225 of 2015
-2-
compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. It was submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land measuring 10 bighas 2 biswas and raised construction over the land much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The petitioners are still in physical possession of the land in question.
Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners. It was not disputed that construction was existing over the land in question prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The fact that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the plot is not disputed by the State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides that acquisition of land would lapse in cases where award had been announced by the Collector five years prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act i.e. 1.1.2014, in case either the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid or the possession thereof has not been taken.
In the case in hand, it is admitted position on record that compensation for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners. As regards possession of the land is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the land as construction had been raised thereon.
Sharmila Devi 2017.12.02 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 11225 of 2015
-3-
For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, ingredients as
contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
(Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 27.11.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sharmila Devi 2017.12.02 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition of land lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act given that compensation was not paid and the petitioners remained in possession.
Whether the ingredients for lapse of acquisition as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were met in the present case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bimla Devi and others
State of Haryana and others
Rajesh Bindal
Gurvinder Singh Gill
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
