Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4864 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 22578 of 2008)
VIJAY LATKA & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
01.05.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4118/2006 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The writ petition was filed by
the appellants challenging the Notification dated 11.11.2002
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For
JUDGMENT
short `1894 Act') and the declaration dated 07.11.2003 and
Award dated 31.10.2005. The High Court dismissed the writ
petition on the sole ground that since Award had already been
passed, the writ petition was not maintainable.
3. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the writ
petition, in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (For short `2013
Page 1
Act') appellants have filed an additional affidavit stating
therein that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed as
far as the land of the appellants are concerned. Since
according to the appellants, the respondent State has neither
paid the compensation nor taken physical possession of the
land, this court directed the State to respond to the
th
affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 19 April, 2016
has been filed before this Court by the Administrator,
Haryana Urban Development Authority. At paragraph 3 of the
affidavit, it is stated that the award was made on 31.10.2005
and “that possession of the land was taken over on as is
where is basis by the Land Acquisition Collector on
31.10.2005.....”. Whether taking over the possession in such
a manner would satisfy the statutory requirement of taking
physical possession is a question to be addressed.
4. However, since the appellants are otherwise entitled
to succeed in this case we leave that question open. It is the
case of the appellants that no compensation in respect of the
JUDGMENT
acquired land has been paid to them. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that whoever approached the Authority, the
compensation has been paid. The learned counsel also invited
our attention to paragraph 8 of the affidavit which reads as
follows:
“That as regards the compensation amount for
acquired land, office of the Land Acquisition Officer,
Panchkula has reported that the compensation has not
been obtained by the petitioners though compensation to
Page 2
the extent of Rs.4,00,93,086/- has already been
obtained by other land owners who came forward to take
the compensation. Therefore, there was due offer of
compensation and the present case does not fall within
the meaning of provision contained in Section 31(2) of
the Act, 1894.”
5. Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, where an Award
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been passed and in case
compensation has not been paid to the land owner or
deposited before the Court in terms of the requirements
under the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings get lapsed.
In case compensation has not been paid, the land acquisition
proceedings in respect of that acquisition will stand
lapsed, as if there is no acquisition.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents is that whoever approached the Haryana Urban
Development Authority or the competent authority has been
paid compensation and since the appellants failed to
JUDGMENT
approach the quarters concerned for the compensation, they
cannot be granted any relief. We find this contention
difficult to appreciate. When a land is compulsorily
acquired, it is for the Requisitioning Authority to make the
payment and does not require the land owner to come and
receive the payment.
7. As and when land is taken over by way of
Page 3
acquisition, the land owner has to be compensated with the
amount of compensation duly determined under the Act. In
case there is any dispute as to who is to be paid the
amount, the same is to be deposited in Court in terms of
Section 31 of the 1894 Act. In this case before us, the
stand of the Requisitioning Authority, namely, Haryana
Development Authority is that the money is ready with them
and it is for the land owner to come and receive the
payment. This stand is not permissible under the law. It
is for the authorities concerned to pay the money and take
the land and in case there is any dispute as to whom the
money should be paid, then the same has to be deposited in
Court.
8. As admittedly no compensation has been paid to the
appellants in terms of the above mentioned Award passed in
the year 2005, the appellants are entitled to succeed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT
9. The proceedings for acquisition of land of the appellants
and covered by the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and leading to the Award
referred to above stand set aside as having been lapsed.
Page 4
10. The learned counsel for the Haryana Urban
Development Authority submits that the land of the
appellants has been acquired for the purpose of development
scheme and it comes under the Green Belt. We make it clear
that this judgment would not stand in the way of the HUDA
taking fresh steps for requisition of the land of the
appellants under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
11. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 05, 2016
JUDGMENT
Page 5