Allowed

Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2017CWP/26762/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the acquisition of land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because the award was announced before January 1, 2014, and either compensation or possession was not provided at that time. The court allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the Petitioners were directed to maintain status quo for six months; the State was allowed to withdraw deposited compensation.

Krishan Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No. 26762 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 26762 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.12.2017

¶5

Krishan Kumar and another

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill

¶11

Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶14

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 received 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 22.6.2006 and 20.6.2007, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 28.11.2008.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them.

¶16

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.13 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP No. 26762 of 2016

¶18

-2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the State submitted that after announcement of award by the Collector, possession of the acquired land was delivered to HSIIDC on the same day vide Patwari Rapat Rojnamacha Vakyati Rapat No.302. It was further submitted that the State had deposited the amount of compensation with the Court in January 2015. It was further submitted that the acquired land was lying vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and even now it is vacant.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶21

book.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the case in hand, it is admitted position on record that compensation for the acquired land was deposited by the State in Court in January, 2015 even though award was announced by the Collector on 28.11.2008. It was much after the enactment of the 2013 Act.

¶24

For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, one condition as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed. However, the State shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited with the Court in the case of present petitioners.

¶25

The State shall also be at liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with the landowners for

¶26

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.13 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP No. 26762 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

purchasing/ retaining the land in accordance with law, in case the land in question is required for completion of any project or otherwise. The petitioners shall maintain status quo regarding the land in question for a period of six months to enable the State to take decision.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed.

¶31

(Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 4.12.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.13 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Riviera Textile Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs Punjab National Bank & Another

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Noble Alchem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.

Parmjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Lala Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahavir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.