Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Gopal Yadav, S/O Shri Ganaga Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Shubha Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 451/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12012/2015
1. Ram Kanwar S/o Late Shri Gopi, (since deceased) through
legal representatives-
1/1. Lala Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Kanwar, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh,
Distt. Ajmer
1/2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Late Shri Ram Kanwar, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh,
Distt. Ajmer
1/3. Mangal Chand S/o Late Shri Ram Kanwar, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh,
Distt. Ajmer
----Appellants-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Industries (Group- I),
Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,
Through Its Managing Director.
4. Land Acquisition Officer And Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kishangarh, District, Ajmer.
Respondents
5. Gopal S/o Late Shri Lalu Ahir, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer
6. Dev Karan S/o Late Shri Laxman, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer
7. Suraj Mal S/o Late Shri Laxman, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post Sawantsar, Teh. Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer
---- Proforma Respondents-Writ Petitioners (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) (2 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] Connected With (2) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 362/2022 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14306/2015
1. Ram Gopal Yadav, S/o Shri Ganaga Ram Yadav, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer.
2. Sita Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
3. Norat Mal, S/o Shri Madho Lal Yadav, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
4. Premchand, S/o Shri Motilal, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
5. Amarchand, S/o Shri Chhaganlal, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
6. Omprakash, S/o Shri Chhotulal, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer.
7. Satya Narayan, S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
8. Kalyan Mal, S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
9. Hansraj, S/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer.
10. Vinod Yadav, S/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer.
11. Smt. Gyarsi Devi, W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai Yadav, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer. (Name Deleted After Application For Withdrawal).
----Appellants-Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM)
(3 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] 2. Dy. Secretary, Industries (Group-I), Department,
Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation (RIICO), Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its Managing Director.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kishanga rh, District Ajmer.
Respondents
5. Ganeshi Lal, S/o Shri Ramchandra, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Balaji Mandir, Madanganz Kishangarh, Ajmer
----Proforma-Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi Advocate.
Mr. Amit Kuri Advocate with Ms. Aditi Jodha Advocate; Ms. Alveera Ayub Advocate; Mr. Dharma Ram Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Virendra Lodha Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma Advocate.
Mr. R.P. Singh Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Rathore Advocate.
Mr. Alok Chaturvedi Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 29/06/2022 Heard.
These appeals are directed against order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, in the matter of land acquisition proceedings and validity of award dated 01.07.2015, it has been concluded that the award has not lapsed by holding that the period within which the award is required to be passed would be as provided under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') and not as provided under the provisions contained in the Right to (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) (4 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013').
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd, Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and Others, (Civil Appeal Nos. 6673 and 6674 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13093- 13094 of 2018 along with one other appeal decided on 10.11.2021) has categorically held that two years period specified under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 will no longer apply after repeal of the Act of 1894 in those cases where the awards are passed subsequent to coming into force of the new enactment, i.e., the Act of 2013.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State; learned Senior Advocate as also learned counsel for other respondents would submit that in the present case, though the award was passed subsequent to coming into force of the new Act, i.e., the Act of 2013, nevertheless, the proceedings for land acquisition had already been initiated under the old Act, i.e., the Act of 1894. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act of 2013, particularly with reference to language of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act of 2013, it has been stressed that in such a case, the period as prescribed under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 will be applicable and the award cannot be said to have lapsed on the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) (5 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] ground that it has been passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 25 of the Act of 2013.
It is to be placed on record that Respondent No. 5 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 362/2022 has already accepted the compensation amount.
The undisputed facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 14.06.2012 for acquisition of land, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 04.06.2013. while the aforesaid proceedings remained pending and before the award could be passed under the Act of 1894, the new land acquisition law, namely, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. The award finally came to be passed only on 01.07.2015, i.e., after coming into force of the Act of 2013. These facts remain undisputed from the records of the case.
While the respondents-land owners laid challenge to the award on various grounds, one of the grounds raised was that as the award was passed after coming into force the Act of 2013, the limitation for passing award was twelve months and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd, Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and Others (supra), the award was required to be passed within a period of twelve months from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013, i.e., within one year from 01.01.2014.
The State placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) (6 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] Vs. Manoharlal & Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 to contend that the operation of the provisions contained in Section 24 is limited and the period of limitation for passing of award as provided under the repealed Act will apply and, therefore, the award which was passed within the period stipulated under the repealed Act is valid and operative in law.
Learned Single Judge, however, relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Others (supra), particularly on the observations made in Para 340, 358, 359 and 366.1 thereof held that proceedings would not lapse as under
Section 24, sub-section (1) (a) of the Act of 2013, only compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the Act of 2013. According to learned Single Judge, as the notification was duly published on 03.07.2013 and under Section 11A of the Act of 1894, final award was quantified under the Act of 2013, within a period of two years, on 01.07.2015, it has been held that there was no lapse of proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd, Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), in our considered opinion, the issue raised in these appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the question for determination as below:
"Whether the two-year period specified under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act', for short) will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) (7 of 7) [SAW-451/2022] for the awards made under clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act?"
After examining the complete scheme of the new and the old land acquisition laws, it was concluded as below:
"40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as under:
(i) Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply to the awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.
(ii) The limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force.
(iii) xxxxxxxxx.
(iv) xxxxxxxxx.
(v) xxxxxxxxx.
(vi) xxxxxxxxx."
In view of above enunciation of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the award was required to be passed within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 25 of the Act of 2013 and not the one as provided under the Act of 1894.
Resultantly, we have to hold that the award having not been passed within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 25 of the Act of 2013, but passed thereafter on 01.07.2015, lapsed.
Accordingly, these appeals deserve to be allowed and the same are allowed. Impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ petitions filed by the appellants are allowed and the impugned award qua the appellants shall stand lapsed and all legal consequences shall follow. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J MANOJ NARWANI /36-37 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 12:24:58 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)