Petitioners challenged land acquisition awards made under the 1894 Act instead of the 2013 Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision that stay periods do not entitle landowners to compensation under the 2013 Act, the Court held the awards valid and dismissed the petition.
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. 6584 of 2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:058352-DB
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(125) CWP No. 6584 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.4.2024
Reena Singh and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Present: Mr. V.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 4-HSIIDC. ****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
CWP No. 6584 of 2024 -2-
2024:PHHC:058352-DB
proceedings launched under the Act of 1894, becoming stayed through the orders becoming rendered by Courts of law.
“ 10.12 Thus, it is necessary to dwell into the reasons as to why no award has been made. As discussed aforesaid, if there is an order of restraint on the Collector or on the acquiring authority and as a result of which, the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer is not in a position to make an award for reasons beyond his control and in compliance of the interim order granted by a court of law at the instance of the land owner or any other person who may have questioned the acquisition, the period during which the interim order has operated has to be reckoned and if on the date of enforcement of Act, 2013 i.e.,
Gurpreet Singh 2024.04.30 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 6584 of 2024 -3-
2024:PHHC:058352-DB
01.01.2014, no award has been made owing to the operation of such an interim order granted by a Court in favour of the land owner, then the provisions of the 2013, Act cannot straightaway be made applicable in the determination of the compensation. This is because, but for the operation of the interim order, the award could have been made under the provisions of the Act, 1894 until 31.12.2013 and then provisions of Act, 1894 would have applied as per clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 24. But on the other hand, owing to the operation of the interim order granted by a Court in favour of land owner, the award would not have been made as on 01.01.2014 when the Act, 2013 was enforced.
10.13 In our view in such a situation the acquiring authority cannot be burdened with the determination of compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. In other words, the land owner cannot, on the one hand, assail the acquisition and seek interim orders restraining the authorities from proceeding further in the acquisition, and on the other hand, contend that since no award has been made under Section 11 of Act, 1894 on 01.01.2014, the provisions of the Act, 2013 should be made applicable in determining the compensation.
17 . In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is observed as under:-
(i) It is concluded and held that in a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Act, 1894.”
Gurpreet Singh 2024.04.30 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 6584 of 2024 -4-
2024:PHHC:058352-DB
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
April 29, 2024 Gurpreet
Gurpreet Singh 2024.04.30 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is vitiated because acquisition proceedings were stayed by court orders when the 2013 Act commenced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad Versus Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and OthersRelied on¶4
2022 Live Law (SC) 504
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Reena Singh and another
State of Haryana and others
Sureshwar Thakur
Lalit Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
