THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus SUSHILA & ORS. on 13 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab andCHaryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that theacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedunder Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013D(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the State of Haryana haspreferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the HighCourt it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein -original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land inEquestion has not been paid to them and even the possession of the landsin question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedto have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor thecompensation for the acquired land has been paid.

F

2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by theLand Acquisition Officer. It was specifically disputed that the possessionof the acquired land was not taken over. It was also the specific case onbehalf of the appellants herein that as such the original writ petitionersbeing the subsequent purchasers after the notification under Section 4Gdated 26.08.2003 there was no question of any compensation to be paidto them. It was submitted that the petitioners being subsequent purchasershad no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings more particularlyto pray for lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant part of thewritten statement read as under:

H

H

“1. That the petitioners have no locus standi to file thepresent petition before this Hon’ble court because the petitionerswere not owners of the acquired land at the time of the notificationunder section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6 dated10.08.2004. The gram Panchayat of village Nathupur was ownerof the land bearing khasra no. 155 (1-7-0), 156/1(0-3-8), 156/3(1-18-17). The petitioners were tenants in the land in disputeas per the revenue record. The petitioners become owners ofthe land in dispute vide order dated 24.05.2006 passed by theHon’ble High court in Regular Second Appeal no. 1578 of 1990and Civil Misc no. 3568-C of 2006. Immediately thereafter thepetitioners no’s 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 sold their land in disputeto the other person i.e. Dharmpal son of Paras Ram vide saledeed no’s. 8637 dated 4.7.2006 and mutation no. 2218 dated09.08.2006 was also sanctioned in favour of vendee. The sale ofthe land by the petitioners was well before the announcement ofthe Award no. 8 dated 04.08.2006. So the petitioners are notentitled to file the present petition against the acquisition proceedingafter disbursement of compensation and the present petition isliable to be dismissed with the cost on this ground.

xxx xxx xxx

3. That the total compensation amount of the awarded land isRs.76,32,858/-. The compensation of the acquired land was notpaid to the petitioners because the petitioners no. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11and 18 were not owners of the acquired land on the date of passingthe Award and other land owners did not give their consent toreceive the compensation amount of the acquired land and did notprovide any documentary proof to prove their ownership and assuch un-disbursed amount, is lying deposited in the account ofthe LAC, and is available for payment immediately on demand ofactual land owners on the date of passing the Award.

xxx xxx xxx

10. That the contents of Para no. 10 of the writ petition are admittedto the extent that the award of the land in dispute was announcedon 04.08.2006. It is specifically denied that the petitioners are in AB

C

D

E

FG

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

physical possession of the acquired land. It is submitted thatpossession of the acquired land has been handed over to therepresentative of HUDA on the same day of the award videRapat no. 702 date 04.08.2006. The petitioners are encroachersin the acquired land. Rest of the contents of this Para is matterof record.

xxx xxx xxx

14. That the contents of Para no. 14 of the writ petition are wrongand denied. It is specifically denied that the acquisition proceedingqua the petitioners has lapsed as per the provision of section 24(2) of Right to fair compensation and transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. It issubmitted that the physical possession of the acquired land hasbeen handed over to the representative of HUDA on the sameday of the award vide Rapat no. 702 dated 04.08.2006. Thepetitioners are encroachers in the acquired land and compensationof the acquired land was not paid to the petitioners because theyare not owners of the acquired land and were not entitled to thesame. Rest of the contents of this Para is matter of record.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

17. That the contents of Para no. 17 of the writ petition are wrongand denied. It is submitted that the acquisition proceeding qua thepetitioners cannot be lapsed as per the provision of section 24 (2)of Right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, because the physicalpossession of the acquired land has been handed over to therepresentative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide Rapatno. 702 dated 04.08.2006. The petitioners are encroachers inthe acquired land and compensation of the acquired land was notpaid to the petitioners because they are not owners of the acquiredland. The acquisition proceedings have been carried out as perthe demarcation given by Distt, Town Planner, Gurgaon, inaccordance with the mandatory provisions of the L.A. Act. Theacquisition is just as per law in the interest of public at large and not Liable to be quashed on any of the grounds mentioned by thepetitioners in this Para of the writ petition. That no law points isinvolved in the writ petition which requires adjudication by thisHon’ble High Court. The contentions raised in sub Para (i) to (iv)are wrong and hence denied. The acquisition proceeding werecarried out in accordance with Law.”

3. From the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the specific caseon behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in questionwas taken over and handed over to the beneficiary on 04.08.2006. Itwas also the case on behalf of the appellant that the petitioners areencroachers in the acquired land and compensation of the acquired landwas not paid to them because they were not co-owners at the time ofaward. The aforesaid has not at all been considered by the High Courtwhile passing the impugned judgment and order. As the possession wastaken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary,any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to beencroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take thebenefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and pray thatas now they are in possession, may be as encroachers, they are entitledto relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It would be giving a premiumto the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of thelegislature.

4. Even otherwise as observed and held by this Court in thecase of Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Buildingvs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 and DelhiDevelopment Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors,Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchasers have nolocus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.

4.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid twodecisions, the writ petition at the instance of the private respondentsherein – original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers ought notto have been entertained by the High Court challenging the acquisitionproceedings and/or praying for lapse of the acquisition under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances also the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt passed in CWP No. 15720 of 2014 is hereby quashed and setaside. The original writ petition filed by the private respondents – originalwrit petitioners, stands dismissed accordingly.

B

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Nidhi JainC

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H