Disposed¶29

M/S Pranav Pooja Traders v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2025CWP/10972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; Land Acquisition Act 1894 Sections 4 and 6 notifications (2.3.1993, 1.3.1994); award 28.2.1996; possession not taken; compensation and enhanced compensation paid; running industrial unit on site; mutation in HUDA's name 8.1.2004; refund of compensation with interest per HUDA policy; M/s Pranav Pooja Traders, Processors & Manufactures v. State of Haryana; CWP No. 10972 of 2016 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana; decided 13.11.2017.

What did the court decide?

Acquisition of the land in question held to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Petitioner directed to return the compensation received, with interest as per the HUDA policy, within 3 months of notice, failing which the acquisition stands deemed upheld. ¶29

M/S Pranav Pooja Traders Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the award having been announced more than five years prior to 1.1.2014 and possession of the land not having been taken, although compensation and enhanced compensation stand paid.

¶14

Court's answer

That the acquisition of the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the award having been announced more than five years prior to 1.1.2014 and possession of the acquired land not having been taken, although compensation and enhanced compensation had been paid and the State showed no material of any development activity on the disputed portion.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to return the amount of compensation received by it along with interest as per the policy framed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority within 3 months from receipt of notice; on failure, the acquisition of land shall be deemed to be upheld.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Rajesh Bindal and Gurvinder Singh Gill, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition claiming lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued on 2.3.1993 and 1.3.1994, and the award was announced on 28.2.1996. Although compensation and even enhanced compensation had been paid, possession of the acquired land was never taken; a running industrial unit existed on the spot, mutation had been entered in HUDA's name on 8.1.2004, and the State produced no material showing any development activity on the disputed portion, which remained unplanned. Holding that the acquisition had lapsed, the Court directed the petitioner to return the compensation received, with interest as per HUDA policy, within 3 months of notice, failing which the acquisition would be deemed upheld. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.10972 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10972 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.11.2017

¶5

M/s Pranav Pooja Traders, Processors & Manufactures

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶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: None for the petitioner.

¶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 petitioner has 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 possession of the land has not been taken from him. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') were issued on 2.3.1993 and 1.3.1994, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 28.2.1996.

¶15

It was claimed by the petitioner in the present petition that the petitioner had set up an industrial unit much before the acquisition. Compensation for the acquired land has been received by it. Even enhanced compensation has also been received. However, possession of the acquired was not taken by the respondents till date. The acquisition being quite old though the entire area as such has been developed but the area in question

¶16

Sharmila Devi 2017.11.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP No.10972 of 2016

¶19

has yet not been planned for development.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submitted that compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioner. Even enhanced compensation for the acquired land has also been paid. However, possession of the acquired land was not taken by the respondents. It was not in dispute that there is a running industrial unit existing on the spot. Mutation of ownership was also entered in the name of HUDA on 8.1.2004. He further did not dispute the fact that the land has yet not been planned for development.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the State 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.

¶22

In the case in hand, the facts on record are that compensation and even enhanced compensation for the acquired has been paid to the petitioner. This fact is not in dispute that there is running industrial unit at the spot. The petitioner had claimed that the entire acquired land is in his possession as it is surrounded by boundary wall being part of the industrial unit. The State has not been able to produce any material on record to show that any development activity has been carried out on the portion of land, which is subject matter of dispute in the present petition.

¶23

For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, one of the condition as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed.

¶24

Sharmila Devi 2017.11.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-

CWP No.10972 of 2016

Ordered accordingly.

The petitioner is directed to return the amount of compensation received by it along with interest as per the policy framed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority within 3 months from the date of receipt of notice in this regard. On failure the acquisition of land shall be deemed to be upheld.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Rajesh Bindal)

¶31

Judge

¶32

(Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 13.11.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33

Sharmila Devi 2017.11.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Pranav Pooja Traders v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pranav Pooja Traders v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jeet Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Suman Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vikas House Building Company Private Limited Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jai Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rainbow Education Society Regd Vs State of Haryana and Ors.