- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bharat Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant asserts ownership and possession of 6 kanals and 5 marlas of land located in Village Adampur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana. The State of Haryana issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire a large tract of land, including the appellant’s parcel, for establishing commercial and residential Sectors 49 and 50 in Gurgaon.
Challenging the acquisition, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18375 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, contending (i) non-compliance with Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and (ii) the existence of constructions on the land similar to other parcels that had been released. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the appellant’s construction was only “Type B” and its release would defeat the project’s purpose.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Delay was condoned, leave was granted, and the present appeal was heard against the High Court’s dismissal order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the appellant’s land have deemed to have lapsed because (a) the award was made more than five years before 1-1-2014, (b) physical possession was not taken, and (c) compensation was neither paid to the appellant nor deposited.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Relied on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, asserting that the award had been passed more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, yet physical possession remained with the appellant and compensation had neither been paid nor deposited.
- Submitted pleadings before both the High Court and the Supreme Court to demonstrate continued possession.
- Contended that, by operation of law, the acquisition stood lapsed and the land must be released.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not detail any specific arguments advanced by the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court extracted and examined Section 24 of the 2013 Act, emphasizing that sub-section (2) is a beneficial provision commencing with a non-obstante clause. The Court reiterated that if, five years after an award, (i) physical possession has not been taken or (ii) compensation has not been paid/deposited, the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed.
After scrutinising the pleadings and the respondents’ counter, the Court found two determinative facts:
- An award had indeed been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
- Neither physical possession had been taken nor compensation paid or deposited in respect of the appellant’s land.
Given these findings, the Court concluded that the statutory conditions of Section 24(2) were fully satisfied, mandating that the acquisition proceedings lapse insofar as they related to the appellant.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The order of the High Court in WP (C) No. 18375 of 2004 is set aside qua the appellant. The acquisition proceedings concerning the appellant’s land are declared to have lapsed.
Implications: The State of Haryana is permitted, if it so chooses, to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act. The decision affords immediate relief only to the appellant and does not articulate any broader jurisprudential principle beyond applying Section 24(2) to the undisputed facts.
Order
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana WP (C) No. 18375 of 2004. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant claims that he is the owner and is in the possession of 6 kanals and 5 marlas of land in dispute bearing Khewat No. 67, Khatauni No. 82, Rectangle No. 9, Kolla No. 21 (6-9), situate within the revenue estate of Village Adampur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. The respondent, State of Haryana issued a notification under Sections 4 and 6 to acquire large extent of lands, including the appellant's land. Aggrieved by the preliminary and final notifications so issued, the appellant had approached the High Court. In the said writ petition, the appellant had taken up two contentions. Firstly, that the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was not complied with by the acquiring authority and secondly, that the acquired land had constructions and, therefore should be released in favour of the appellant as the other 1.40 acres of land had been released in favour of the landowners.
4. The High Court has answered the aforesaid issues against the appellant. It is apropos to notice here that the High Court was reluctant to release the residential portion of the land in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the Joint Site Inspection Committee had found that the construction by the appellant is only of Type “B” construction and therefore the release of such structures would have defeated the very purpose of acquisition i.e to set up commercial as well as residential Sectors 49 and 50 at Gurgaon.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, apart from the other contentions, would bring to our notice Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”). He would contend that in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is required to be set aside. In aid of this submission, the learned counsel would submit that although the award had been passed in the appellant's case, the physical possession of the land had not been taken and the compensation has also not been paid to the appellant. In support of this contention, the appellant has taken us through the pleadings, both in the writ court as well as before this Court, to contend that the physical possession of the land continues to be with the appellant, in spite of the award being passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
6. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said section is required to be extracted. Section 24 of the 2013 Act is as under:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act 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 (1 of 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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
Sub-section (2) of Section 24 commences with a non obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this provision, if the physical possession of the land has not been taken by the acquiring authority though the award is passed and if the compensation has not been paid to the landowners or has not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act is deemed to have been lapsed.
7. Keeping the aforesaid provisions in view, we have specifically looked into the assertions made by the appellant and the way it is countered by the respondents. In our opinion though the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have not taken the physical possession of the land and have not paid the compensation to the appellant or had deposited the said compensation before an appropriate forum.
8. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act squarely applies to the appellant's case and the appellant is entitled to relief sought for in their petition.
9. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order WP (C) No. 18375 of 2004 passed by the High Court qua the appellant only. We declare that the acquisition proceedings insofar as the appellant is concerned are deemed to have lapsed.
10. We permit the respondents, if they so desire, to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the land in question afresh in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. Ordered accordingly.
Alert