Shashi Gupta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 5051-52 of 2016 with Nos. 5053-54 of 2016, 5055-56 of 2016, 5057-58 of 2016 and 5059 of 2016, decided on May 12, 2016

Disposition

Advocates

P.K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, P.K. Goswami, Satinder S. Gulati and Ms Kamaldeep Gulati, Advocates, ;
Alok Sangwan, Vikram Singh Punia, Atul Mangla, Sanjeev Tayal, Dr Kailash Chand, Dr Monika Gusain and Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocates,

Judges

Kurian Joseph
Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Acts

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the 2013 Act”)
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
The 2013 Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants’ land was subjected to acquisition by the State of Haryana. They challenged the acquisition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 18579 of 2006, but their writ petition was dismissed by judgments dated 12-8-2008 and 13-7-2012. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court by way of SLPs (C) Nos. 33194-95 of 2012.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, an RTI reply revealed that although an award had been passed on 16-7-2007, (i) compensation had never been paid to the landowners and (ii) physical possession had not been taken because of an interim stay operating in the High Court. On 5-5-2016, the Supreme Court directed the State to file an affidavit clarifying the dates of deposit of compensation and the period of stay, warning that failure to do so could result in allowing the appeals. No satisfactory affidavit was filed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, on the admitted facts of non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession for more than five years prior to 1-1-2014, the acquisition had lapsed by operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Whether the matter should be remitted to the High Court for reconsideration, as urged by the State, because the Section 24(2) contention was allegedly not raised earlier.

Arguments of the Parties

State of Haryana

Contended that the appellants had not raised Section 24(2) arguments before the High Court.
Sought remand of the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration on this new ground.

Appellants

Relied on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, asserting that the acquisition had lapsed because compensation was not paid and possession was not taken for five years before the Act came into force.
Pointed to the RTI reply demonstrating the absence of payment and possession.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183	Clarified that mere deposit of compensation in treasury is insufficient; lawful payment requires deposit in court or to landowner.	Used to establish that, in the present case, compensation was not “paid” in accordance with law, fulfilling one limb of Section 24(2).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court rejected the State’s plea for remand, holding that the material facts were undisputed and already before it:

No dispossession of the appellants had occurred after 12-8-2008.
No compensation had been paid in compliance with the standard set in Pune Municipal Corpn.
The 2013 Act became operative on 1-1-2014; therefore, a period of more than five years had elapsed without payment or possession.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stipulates that where compensation is not paid and possession not taken for five years preceding the Act’s commencement, the acquisition “shall be deemed to have lapsed.” Given the admitted facts, the Court concluded that the statutory conditions for lapse were fully met. Consequently, remanding the matter to the High Court would serve no purpose.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed – Land Acquisition Proceedings Declared Lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Immediate Effect: The acquisition notifications and award concerning the appellants’ land stand nullified; ownership remains with the appellants, and no costs were awarded.

Broader Implications: The decision applies the already-established interpretation of Section 24(2) and does not set a new precedent, but it reinforces that courts will summarily declare lapses where undisputed facts satisfy the statutory criteria.

Show full summary ...

Shashi Gupta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

Kurian Joseph, J.— Leave granted. The challenge to the land acquisition proceedings by the appellants was unsuccessful before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and thus aggrieved by the judgment dated 12-8-2008 passed in Shashi Gupta v. State of Haryana CWP No. 18579 of 2006 and the judgment dated 13-7-2012 passed in Shashi Gupta v. State of Haryana, the appellants are before this Court.

2. It was brought to the notice of the Court that in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the 2013 Act”), the proceedings have lapsed and, therefore, on 5-5-2016 SLPs (C) Nos. 33194-95 of 2012, this Court passed the following order:

“1. In answer to RTI application, the petitioners have been informed that though the award has been passed on 16-7-2007, the petitioners have not received the compensation. It is also stated in the RTI reply that the possession could not be taken on account of stay of dispossession in CWP No. 18579 of 2006. There will be a direction to Respondent 1 to file affidavit on the following aspects:

(i) When was the amount of compensation deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector?

(ii) When was the stay of dispossession granted in CWP No. 18579 of 2006 and when was it vacated?

The competent officer of the State of Haryana shall file the reply on these two aspects on or before 11-5-2016.

2. We make it clear that if reply as mentioned above is not filed, it will be taken that they have nothing to reply and that the special leave petitions are only to be allowed.

3. Post for judgment/order on 12-5-2016.”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that these were not the contentions taken by the appellants before the High Court and in case, the appellants propose to get the matters reconsidered on the basis of these contentions, the matters may be remitted to the High Court.

4. We are afraid, we cannot appreciate the above submission of the learned counsel for the State. On the admitted facts, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed since there is no stay on any count operating in the matter of possession or acquisition of the lands of the appellants after 12-8-2008. The 2013 Act came into force on 1-1-2014. Therefore, five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the appellants have not been dispossessed. It is also a fact that there is no payment of compensation in accordance with law as declared by this Court in Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183.

5. In view of the above admitted position, it is not necessary to remit the matters to the High Court. The land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in the facts of the present cases in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is declared so and the appeals are allowed. No costs.

Shashi Gupta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

State of Haryana

Appellants

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Shashi Gupta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

Comments