Shri Hari Trust Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Shri Hari Trust Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed; the impugned notification(s) are maintained and affirmed; the respondent is to pass the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 with compensation determined in terms of the Act of 2013; the petitioner is to hand over encumbrance-free possession; miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated by a Section 4 notification issued on 26.8.2013 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but with the Section 6 declaration made on 21.8.2014 after the 2013 Act came into force, were required to be launched and conducted under the 2013 Act, entailing quashing of the notifications. +1 more

Court's answer

Initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 occurs on the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification and not on issuance of the Section 6 declaration; hence the Section 4 notification issued on 26.8.2013, prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act, validly initiated the proceedings under the 1894 Act and validates the subsequently issued Section 6 declaration dated 21.8.2014.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settled factual matrix rendered in HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal, since the Section 4 notification was issued on 26.8.2013 (before 01.01.2014), the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act apply to the instant case: the award is to be passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, but the determination of compensation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

Key takeaways

Non-rendering of awards under the 1894 Act arising from stay orders granted by Courts of Law does not cause the launching of acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to lapse; the Collector concerned may, in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act, yet make an award, the stay period standing excluded for practical purposes.ratio¶13
Directions issued: the respondent concerned is to pass the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in respect of the acquired lands, with determination of compensation made in terms of the 2013 Act; and the petitioner is directed to forthwith hand over encumbrance-free possession of the subject lands to the respondent concerned.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition – interplay of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (referred to in the judgment as the 'Act of 2013') – writ petition of Shri Hari Chaitable Trust challenging Section 4 notification dated 26.8.2013 and Section 6 declaration dated 21.8.2014, heard afresh on remand by the Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024 after the Apex Court set aside the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Deepak Aggarwal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, in HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal (Civil Appeal No.5947-5948 of 2022). Following paragraph 32 of that verdict, the Court holds that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are initiated by issuance of the Section 4 notification, not by the Section 6 declaration; as the Section 4 notification issued on 26.8.2013 predates commencement of the 2013 Act, the proceedings stand validly initiated under the 1894 Act notwithstanding the post-2013 Section 6 declaration, and Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies – award to be passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, compensation determinable per the 2013 Act. Non-passing of the award is attributed to interim/final orders of this Court (order dated 05.09.2017 quashing the notification qua the petitioner) and of the Supreme Court (remand with status quo on possession); relying on State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Moti Ratan Estate and Anr., AIR 2019 (SUPREME COURT) 4149, the stay period is excluded and the proceedings are not vitiated. The lands form part of layout plans serving public purpose. Petition dismissed; notifications maintained and affirmed; petitioner directed to hand over encumbrance-free possession.

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M)

-1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) Reserved on: 11.3.2025 Date of Decision: 27.3.2025

Shri Hari Chaitable Trust

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Argued by : Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana for the respondents-State.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate, Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for respondent-HUDA.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

“...........Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of all the other issues on merits that have been raised in the respective petitions in accordance with law........” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues, that

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

since the declaration as became passed under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”), was so passed on 21.8.2014, thereby when the date of making of the said declaration, thus occurred subsequent to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”). Therefore, he argues that no legal relevance can become assigned to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 on 26.8.2013.

Therefore, he submits that the notification(s) (supra), are required to be quashed, and, set aside, thus on the ground, that since on the date of makings of Section 6 notification, the 'Act of 2013' had assumed force thus, thereby the proceedings for acquisition were required to be launched under the 'Act of 2013', than under the 'Act of 1894'.

The above raised contention before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is no longer res integra , as it becomes completely answered by a verdict drawn by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “ Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. And others V Deepak Aggarwal and others ” to which Civil Appeal No.5947-5948 of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16631-16632 of 2018 became assigned. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.31 of the verdict (supra), paragraph whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter, had thereins formulated the question of law, thus for an answer being rendered thereons.

“31. Now, we will consider the other common questions involved in the captioned appeals. They pertain to the questions as to whether Section 4 notification issued under the L.A. Act prior to 01.01.2014 (date of commencement of 2013 Act) could

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -3-

continue or survive after 01.01.2014 and, as to whether Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could be issued after 01.01.2014.”

A reading of the hereinabove extracted formulated question of

law, reveals that the issue which engaged the Hon’ble Apex Court appertained to whether the initiation of proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', commenced on the date of the making of a notification under Section 4 of the said Act, or whether the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', commenced on the date of making of a declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894'. It appears that the reason for the drawing of questions of law (supra), arose from the provisions occurring in Section 24(1) of the 'Act of 2013', provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter.

“ 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases .–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.”

Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court was engaged in making an

interpretation of the phraseology “proceedings initiated under the 'Act of 1894', as occurs in Section 24(1) of the 'Act of 2013'. In rendering an answer to the above question of law, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.32

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentthereof, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, had expostulated, Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -4-

that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', thus occurs on the date of making of a notification under Section 4 of the said Act, and, that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', does not occur, on the date of issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894'.

“We think that while considering those questions we will have to bear in mind the purposes and the legislative history of the 2013 Act and also the intention of the legislature in drafting the same in the manner in which it now exists. We have already dealt with those aspects. One crucial aspect discernible from Section 24(1)(a) has also to be taken note of in this context. The combined effect of Section 24(1) and clause (a) thereof is that if land acquisition proceeding under the L.A. Act was initiated prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of the 2013 Act, and if it was not culminated in an award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, then all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation should apply to such acquisition proceedings. Thus, it is obvious that in case of nonpassing of an award in terms of Section 11 of the L.A. Act where the acquisition proceedings have been initiated prior to 01.01.2014, all provisions under the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation alone would apply to such acquisition proceedings. In other words, it would mean that in such circumstances the land acquisition proceedings should continue, but all the provisions relating to the determination of compensation under the 2013 Act alone will be applicable to such proceedings, meaning thereby, the 2013 Act would come into play only at that stage. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that between the initiation of land acquisition proceedings by issuance and publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and the stage at which compensation for the acquisition calls for determination, there

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M)

-5-

are various procedures to be followed to make the acquisition in accordance with the law. The question is when Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act makes it clear with necessary implication that all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation alone would be applicable to such proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act but, not culminated in an award, how the procedures are to be regulated during the intervening period till the proceedings reach the stage of determination of compensation. There cannot be any uncertainty on that aspect. The procedures to be undertaken and the manner in which they are to be regulated cannot remain uncertain. They are conducted either in the manner provided under the L.A. Act or in the manner provided under the 2013 Act. But then, in view of Section 24(1)(a), the provisions relating to the determination of compensation alone can be applied to such proceedings or in other words, there is only a restricted application of the provisions of the 2013 Act in relation to such proceedings. The inevitable conclusion can only be that what is applicable to the various procedures to be undertaken during the period up to the stage of determination of compensation are those prescribed under the L.A. Act. We have no doubt that without such a construction, the provisions under Section 24(1)(a) would not work out, in view of the restrictive application of the 2013 Act. It is in this context that the decision in Ambica Quarry Works’ case (supra) assumes relevance. Any construction of the said provision without taking into the legislative intention, referred hereinbefore would defeat the legislative intention as also the very objects of the 2013 Act. Certainly, it would not be in public interest to allow such proceedings to lapse or allow the authorities to follow the procedures during such period according to their sweet will. A uniform procedure has to be followed in respect of such proceedings. The acquisitions initiated for public purposes should go on in a fair and transparent manner with a view to

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M)

-6-

achieve the intent and purport of the 2013 Act and at the same time, the persons affected shall have definite idea about the manner in which procedures would be conducted. The Party ‘B’ would not be justified in describing such situations of necessity and the consequential application of provisions which are actually saved on account of the construction of Section 24 as an attempt to bring the words expressly employed in Section 24(1)(b) and absent in Section 24(1)(a), by indirect method to Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The aforesaid conclusions and findings would make the contentions of Party ‘B’ that Section 4(1) notification issued prior to 01.01.2014 could not survive after 01.01.2014 and also that Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could not be issued after 01.01.2014, unsustainable. In fact, all such procedures and formalities shall be continued till the determination of compensation by applying all the provisions for determination of compensation, under the 2013 Act. A contra-construction, in view of the restrictive application of the provisions to such proceedings during its continuance, would make the provisions under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act unworkable.”

Moreover, while making the above interpretation to the above statutory phraseology, which occurs in the 'Act of 2013', the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 32 carried in verdict (supra), thus proceeded to declare, that if the notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', is issued prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', thereby if the award, which was otherwise to be drawn in terms of Section 11, of the 'Act of 1894', thus is not drawn prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', or is drawn on coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', yet the Acquiring Authority concerned, rather in terms of the provisions extracted (supra), becoming endowed with or being preserved a liberty, to yet proceed to make an award Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentunder the 'Act of 1894', besides the making of an award under the 'Act of Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -7-

1894', thus post the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', rather assuming force. Importantly, yet the compensation being amenable to become determined in terms of the statutory principles contemplated under the 'Act of 2013'.

In consequence, it has to be now determined, whether the Acquiring Authority concerned, issued the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, thus prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2013, inasmuch as, whether the said notification became issued prior to 01.01.2014, thus whereons the 'Act of 2013' assumed force and/or came into operation.

In the above regard, it is not disputed, that the notification as issued under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894', was issued on 26.8.2013, and, when the date of issuance of the said notification, is prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'. Therefore, in terms of the verdict (supra), the acquisition proceedings became initiated as such under the 'Act of 1894'. Consequently, the subsequently issued declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894', even if the date of making of the said declaration, was subsequent to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'. Nonetheless, the trite factum of issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894' rather on a date, but prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', has the conspicuous relevance and import, thus for thereby validating the subsequently issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.

Furthermore, a perusal of reply on affidavit reveals that the award of the instant acquisition proceedings could not be passed owing to the interim orders passed by this Court, which were further made absolute by

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -8-

this Court vide order dated 05.09.2017, whereby the notification qua the petitioner was quashed in view of the full Bench judgment rendered in case titled as Deepak Aggarwal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others . Thereafter, the said judgment of the full Bench of this Court became set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal (Supra) and the instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.02.2024 and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to maintain status quo regarding possession. It was in view of the above stay order in operation till today, that the award could not be pronounced.

However, since the said non passing of award and non assumption of possession of the subject lands was owing to the interim/final orders respectively passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, it cannot be construed that the authorities have not proceeded in accordance with law and/or the acquisition proceedings become vitiated.

Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Moti Ratan Estate and Anr.' reported in AIR 2019 (SUPREME COURT) 4149 , whereins it has been expostulated that if there is any stay over the action or proceeding by a Court of law, in one or the other matter arising from the selfsame acquisition proceedings in reference to Section 4 followed with Section 6 of the Act, the authorities are said to be justified in the given facts and circumstances to stay their hands and await the decision of the Court and such a period during which there is a stay over the action

or proceeding by a Court of law in a matter, that has to be excluded for all

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M) -9-

practical purposes, in computing the statutory period of two years in passing of an award under Section 11 of the Act.

The import of the above expostulations, is that, the non rendition of awards under the 'Act of 1894', when arises from stay orders becoming granted by the Courts of Law, thereby the launching of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', thus would not become lapsed, rather the Collector concerned, may in terms of Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894' thus make an award.

However, in the instant case the Section 4 notification became issued on 26.8.2013, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894' on 21.8.2014, therefore, in view of the settled factual matrix rendered in judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in HSIIDC Vs. Deepak Aggarwal case (supra) , the provisions of Section 24 (1) (a) of the 'Act of 2013' shall apply to the instant case and the determination of compensation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the 'Act of 2013'.

Therefore, the respondent concerned, is directed to pass award under Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894' in respect of the acquired lands but the determination of compensation be made in terms of the 'Act of 2013'. Furthermore, the petitioner is directed to forthwith hand over encumbrance free possession of the subject lands to the respondent concerned.

Conspicuously also since it has been stated in the reply on affidavit, already on record, that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout plans, thereby when they are facilitating the relevant public purposes. Consequently, when public purpose than the ill individualistic interest of the petitioner is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Court

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 15124 of 2016 (O&M)

-10-

finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it.

Final Order of this Court.

In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned notification(s) are maintained and affirmed but as stated (supra) the award be passed qua the subject lands under Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894' but compensation be determined in terms of the 'Act of 2013'.

The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE March 27, 2025 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gurpreet Singh 2025.04.05 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh