Allowed

Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2017CWP/7300/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act lapsed due to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioners remained in possession without receiving compensation, satisfying the lapse criteria within the requisite five-year window post-act enactment. The State was allowed to withdraw deposited funds and pursue new acquisition or negotiate purchase.

What did the court decide?

The acquisition of land is declared lapsed; State is permitted to withdraw deposited compensation and has six months' status quo to decide on fresh proceedings or purchase.

Vikram Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No. 7300 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7300 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.12.2017

¶5

Vikram Singh 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. Nitin Jain, 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

Affidavit of Satish Yadav, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurugram, Haryana dated 3.12.2017 filed in Court is taken on record.

¶15

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 5.5.1997 and 4.5.1998, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 3.5.2000.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither

¶17

Sharmila Devi 2018.01.16 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP No. 7300 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. It was submitted that petitioners are the owners of 500 square yards of plot forming part of khasra No.1809, on which they had constructed house prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The petitioners are still in physical possession thereof.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that house was existing on the land of the petitioners on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It was submitted that as there was dispute regarding apportionment of compensation, the State deposited the same in the Court of Additional District Judge on 1.12.2000. The fact that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the acquired land is not in dispute.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶23

book.

¶24

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.

¶25

In the case in hand, it is admitted position on record that construction had been raised by the petitioners on the acquired land i.e. 500 square yards forming part of khasra No.1809, prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Though the State had deposited the amount of compensation with the Court on 1.12.2000,

¶26

Sharmila Devi 2018.01.16 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP No. 7300 of 2014

¶28

-3-

¶29

however, the petitioners still have not withdrawn the same. The petitioners are still in physical possession of the land.

¶30

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. However, the State shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited with the Court in the case of present petitioners.

¶31

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

¶32

The writ petition is allowed.

¶33

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 11.12.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶34

Sharmila Devi 2018.01.16 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and 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

Sunil and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Asha Parmar and Anr. Vs Authorised Officer and Ors.

Seema Rani & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

M/S Dlf Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Maya Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mam Chand & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.