Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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
Civil Appeal No. of 2023
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.05.02
16:43:17 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 11
(@SLP(C) Nos. 2086420865/2022)
Civil Appeal No. of 2023
(@SLP(C) No. 21305/2022)
J U D G M E N T
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