Full Judgment Text
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9205 of 2022
(@ SLP (C) No.23446 of 2022)
(@ Diary No.29159 of 2021)
The State of Haryana & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Sushila & Ors. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.25
11:10:19 IST
Reason:
No.15720 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the
1
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act
2013’), the State of Haryana has preferred the present
appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the
High Court it was the case on behalf of the private
respondents herein original writ petitioners that the
compensation with respect to the land in question has not
been paid to them and even the possession of the lands in
question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2)
of the Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed as neither the possession
has been taken over nor the compensation for the acquired
land has been paid.
2
2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by
the Land Acquisition Officer. It was specifically disputed
that the possession of the acquired land was not taken over.
It was also the specific case on behalf of the appellants
herein that as such the original writ petitioners being the
subsequent purchasers after the notification under Section
4 dated 26.08.2003 there was no question of any
compensation to be paid to them. It was submitted that the
petitioners being subsequent purchasers had no locus to
challenge the acquisition proceedings more particularly to
pray for lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant
part of the written statement read as under:
“1. That the petitioners have no locus standi to
file the present petition before this Hon’ble court
because the petitioners were not owners of the
acquired land at the time of the notification under
section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6
dated 10.08.2004. The gram Panchayat of village
Nathupur was owner of the land bearing khasra
no. 155 (170), 156/1(038), 156/3(11817). The
petitioners were tenants in the land in dispute as
per the revenue record. The petitioners become
owners of the land in dispute vide order dated
3
24.05.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High court in
Regular Second Appeal no. 1578 of 1990 and Civil
Misc no. 3568C of 2006. Immediately thereafter
the petitioners no’s 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 sold
their land in dispute to the other person i.e.
Dharmpal son of Paras Ram vide sale deed no’s.
8637 dated 4.7.2006 and mutation no. 2218 dated
09.08.2006 was also sanctioned in favour of
vendee. The sale of the land by the petitioners was
well before the announcement of the Award no. 8
dated 04.08.2006. So the petitioners are not
entitled to file the present petition against the
acquisition proceeding after disbursement of
compensation and the present petition is liable to
be dismissed with the cost on this ground.
xxx xxx xxx
3. That the total compensation amount of the
awarded land is Rs.76,32,858/. The
compensation of the acquired land was not paid to
the petitioners because the petitioners no.
1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 were not owners of the
acquired land on the date of passing the Award and
other land owners did not give their consent to
receive the compensation amount of the acquired
land and did not provide any documentary proof to
prove their ownership and as such undisbursed
amount, is lying deposited in the account of the
LAC, and is available for payment immediately on
demand of actual 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 admitted to the extent that the award
of the land in dispute was announced on
4
04.08.2006. It is specifically denied that the
petitioners are in physical possession of the
acquired land. It is submitted that possession of
the acquired land has been handed over to the
representative of HUDA on the same day of the
award vide Rapat no. 702 date 04.08.2006. The
petitioners are encroachers in the acquired land.
Rest of the contents of this Para is matter of record.
xxx xxx xxx
14. That the contents of Para no. 14 of the writ
petition are wrong and denied. It is specifically
denied that the acquisition proceeding qua the
petitioners has lapsed as per the provision of
section 24 (2) of Right to fair compensation and
transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act 2013. It is submitted that
the physical possession of the acquired land has
been handed over to the representative of HUDA on
the same day of the award vide Rapat no. 702
dated 04.08.2006. The petitioners are encroachers
in the acquired land and compensation of the
acquired land was not paid to the petitioners
because they are not owners of the acquired land
and were not entitled to the same. Rest of the
contents of this Para is matter of record.
xxx xxx xxx
17. That the contents of Para no. 17 of the writ
petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that
the acquisition proceeding qua the petitioners
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 physical
possession of the acquired land has been handed
over to the representative of HUDA on the same day
of the award vide Rapat no. 702 dated 04.08.2006.
The petitioners are encroachers in the acquired
5
land and compensation of the acquired land was
not paid to the petitioners because they are not
owners of the acquired land. The acquisition
proceedings have been carried out as per the
demarcation given by Distt, Town Planner,
Gurgaon, in accordance with the mandatory
provisions of the L.A. Act. The acquisition 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 the petitioners in this Para of the writ
petition. That no law points is involved in the writ
petition which requires adjudication by this Hon’ble
High Court. The contentions raised in sub Para (i)
to (iv) are wrong and hence denied. The acquisition
proceeding were carried out in accordance with
Law.”
3. From the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the
specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession
of the land in question was taken over and handed over to
the beneficiary on 04.08.2006. It was also the case on
behalf of the appellant that the petitioners are encroachers
in the acquired land and compensation of the acquired land
was not paid to them because they were not coowners at
the time of award. The aforesaid has not at all been
considered by the High Court while passing the impugned
judgment and order. As the possession was taken over by
6
the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary,
any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to
be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted
to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 and pray that as now they are in possession, may
be as encroachers, they are entitled to relief under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. It would be giving a premium to the
illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention
of the legislature.
4. Even otherwise as observed and held by this Court in
the case of Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land
and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal
and
No.3646 of 2022 Delhi Development Authority
versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal
No.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchasers have no locus
to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.
7
4.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid two decisions, the writ petition at the instance of
the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners
being subsequent purchasers ought not to have been
entertained by the High Court challenging the acquisition
proceedings and/or praying for lapse of the acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the
circumstances also the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above
the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court passed in CWP No.15720 of
2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ
petition filed by the private respondents – original writ
petitioners, stands dismissed accordingly.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
8
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2023.
9