2016 (6) TMI 1487 - HC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition Proceedings Lapse Due to Unpaid Compensation and Untaken Possession Under 2013 Act's Section 24(2.

M/s G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others  

The Court granted relief to the petitioners by declaring that the land acquisition proceedings for their respective lands had lapsed under Section 24(2) ... Interpretation of statute - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 - land acquisition proceedings - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, [2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT], interpreted Section 24(2) of the New Act as 'Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied.' In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only question that arises in this petition is whether either of the conditions under Section 24(2) of the New Act are satisfied in the Petitioner's case. It is found that neither the possession of the land has been taken from the petitioners nor has the compensation ever been paid to them. The petitioners have also filed Jamabandis with respect to the said land issued on 16.01.2015 to demonstrate their possession. This is in spite of the Award having been passed as early as 2006 and the supplementary award in 2007. Given the same the case of the petitioner satisfies both the tests of Section 24(2) as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The acquisition proceedings with respect to the petitioner no. 1's land comprised in Rectangle No. 1, Khasra No. 16/1/1 (7-3), 16/1/2 (0-4), 25/2/1 (2-12), 17 (8-0), 24/1 (1-0), 24/2 (7-0), 23/3 (3- 0), Rectangle No.2, Khasra No. 19/2/1 (3-4), 19/2/2 (1-4), 22/2/1 (0-10), 23/1 (0-3), 3/2/1/1 (1-02) and the petitioner no. 2's land comprised in Rectangle No. 2, Khasra No. 20 (7-7), 21/1 (6-4), situated in Gurgaon, is deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the New Act - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.2. Determination of whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed.3. Application of legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.Analysis:The petitioners, owners of specific land parcels, challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners contended that despite making representations and recommendations for the release of their land, no action was taken, and no compensation was paid. They argued that as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, if an award has been made, but possession is not taken or compensation not paid for five years prior to the new Act's commencement, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation case supported this contention.The Court examined the facts and found that despite awards in 2006 and 2007, possession was not taken, and compensation remained unpaid. Citing the legal fiction under Section 24(2), the Court held that the conditions for lapse of acquisition proceedings were satisfied. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in similar cases, the Court concluded that the acquisition proceedings for both petitioners' lands had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act.In light of the settled law by the Supreme Court, the key issue revolved around whether the conditions of Section 24(2) were met in the petitioners' case. The Court noted the absence of possession transfer and compensation payment to the petitioners despite awards issued years earlier. Supporting documents provided by the petitioners further substantiated their claim. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, ruling that the acquisition proceedings for both petitioners' lands were deemed to have lapsed in accordance with Section 24(2) of the New Act.Therefore, the Court granted relief to the petitioners, declaring the acquisition proceedings for their respective lands as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.