The State Of Haryana vs Hira Singh

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20857 OF 2022)

The State of Haryana & Ors. ...Appellants(s)

Versus Hira Singh …Respondent(s) with Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 28803/2018)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 30435/2018)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) Nos. 418­419/2019)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 21301/2022)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 20856/2022)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 20859/2022) Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.05.02 Civil Appeal No. of 2023 16:43:17 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 11 (@SLP(C) Nos. 20864­20865/2022)

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 21305/2022) JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned common judgment and order dated

27.10.2016 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP

No. 26213/2014 and other allied writ

petitions, by which, the Division Bench of the

High Court has allowed the said writ petitions

and has declared that the acquisition with

respect to the lands in question is deemed to

have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Page 2 of 11 Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

to as “Act, 2013”), the State of Haryana and

others have preferred the present appeals.

2. From the impugned common judgment and

order passed by the High Court, it appears

that the Division Bench of the High Court has

declared that the acquisition with respect to

the lands of respondents – original writ

petitioners shall be deemed to have lapsed

under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 by

observing in paragraph 21 as under: ­ “(21) It is undeniable that compensation amount has not been paid or deposited with the Civil or Reference Court as per Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. It may further be seen from the date of Awards in each case that the same were passed five years or more prior to the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014. It thus stands established that one of the statutory stipulation contained in Section 24(2) re: non­payment of compensation or its deposit for a

Page 3 of 11 period of five years or more from the date of passing of the award till the new Act came into force stands indisputably established in these cases. Equally correct will be to hold that the petitioners have in each case established that they continue to retain the physical possession of the acquired land/properties.”

2.1 It is the case on behalf of the State that in all

these cases the acquisition proceedings under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was under

challenge by the land owners challenging the

notification issued under Sections 4/6 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the respective

original land owners failed to get any relief. It

is also the case on behalf of the State of

Haryana that in fact the possession of the

lands in question acquired was already taken

over and in most of the cases by drawing the

Rapat/Rooznamcha and therefore, upon

Page 4 of 11 taking the possession the lands vested with

the State Government. It is submitted that

therefore, in view of the decision of the

Constitution Bench of this Court in the case

of Indore Development Authority Vs.

Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8

SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed

lapse of acquisition with respect to the lands

acquired as observed and held by the High

Court.

3. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi and Shri Gopal

Shankranarayanan, learned Senior Advocates

appearing on behalf of original writ

petitioners in SLP Nos. 20857/2022 and

28803/2018, respectively, in the cases of

Hira Singh and Pritam Kumar Goel, have

submitted that in fact the respective land

Page 5 of 11 owners are in actual and physical possession

of the lands in question. It is submitted that

therefore and when the compensation has not

been paid/tendered as per Section 31 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as rightly

observed and held by the High Court, there

shall be deemed lapse of acquisition as the

conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013 are satisfied.

3.1 Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate,

appearing on behalf of the original land owner

– Hira Singh in SLP No. 20857/2022 has

relied upon some documents produced along

with the application that in fact the proposal

for realignment of the road is going on and

therefore, the purpose for which the land is

acquired, the land is not needed.

Page 6 of 11 3.2 Shri Gopal Shankranarayanan, learned

Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the

original land owner – Pritam Kumar Goel in

SLP No. 28803/2018 has also submitted that

in the present case the proposal for de­

acquisition of the land in question is pending

and is actively under consideration, for which

he has heavily relied upon the reply under

the RTI Act.

3.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents in other Special Leave Petitions

have requested/prayed that in case this

Court proposes to remand the matter to the

High Court in that case liberty be reserved in

favour of the land owners to approach the

State Government under Section 101­A of the

Act, 2013 as applicable to the State of

Page 7 of 11 Haryana for de­acquisition of the lands in

question acquired.

4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respective parties and having

gone through the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High

Court, more particularly, paragraph 21 of the

impugned order and as it is the case on

behalf of the State of Haryana that the

possession of the lands in question was taken

over by preparing Rapat/Rooznamcha and in

one case, the possession could not be taken

due to stay order/pending litigation, the

matters are required to be remanded to the

High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh

in accordance with law and on its own merits

taking into consideration the law laid­down

Page 8 of 11 by this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra).

5. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, without further entering into

the merits of the cases and without

expressing anything on the merits in favour of

either of the parties, we set aside the

impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court and remit the

matters back to the High Court to decide the

same afresh in accordance with law and on

its own merits and taking into consideration

the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority (supra). All

the contentions which may be available to the

respective parties are kept open to be

considered by the High Court in accordance

Page 9 of 11 with law and on its own merits as observed

hereinabove.

6. We request the High Court to decide and

dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the

earliest and preferably within a period of nine

months from the date of receipt of the present

order. However, it is observed that the order

of remand shall not preclude the State

Government in taking any appropriate

decision on de­acquisition of the land as

contended on behalf of the original land

owner – Pritam Kumar Goel (In SLP No.

28803/2018) and the same may be

considered in accordance with the law and on

its own merits and if permissible under the

law.

7. Similarly, taking into consideration order

dated 29.09.2021 passed in SLP (C) Nos.

Page 10 of 11 2966­2967/2021 and other allied Special

Leave Petitions, liberty is reserved in favour of

the original writ petitioners to make a

representation to the State Government in

terms of Section 101­A of the Act, 2013, as

applicable to the State of Haryana, to be

made within a month from today if they so

desire, which may be decided in accordance

with law and on its own merits within a

period of four months thereafter, for which we

have not expressed anything in favour of

either of the parties.

Present appeals stand disposed of in terms of

the above. No costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH] ………………………………….J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI;

MAY 02, 2023

Page 11 of 11