Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogender And Others vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 12 July, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:086906-DB
CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(109) CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.7.2024
Yogender and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of notification dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P-4), and, also seeks the quashing of notification dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P-5). The said notifications were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The consequent thereto award dated 2.3.2006 has also been asked to be quashed, and, set aside.
2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the petitioners become empowered to claim the making of a lapsing declaration.
3. The present petitioners would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only on anvil of the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, becoming proved to become breached 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 10:00:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:086906-DB CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M) -2- by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing declaration cannot be accorded by this Court.
4. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioners would be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894, to thus become lapsed, but only when the respondent-State rather had completely failed to, in terms of the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching discharging evidence, in respect of the duo parameters, inasmuch as, (i) qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned, becoming deposited for therebys its becoming available for being released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently happening before the coming into force of the Act of 2013.
5. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply on affidavit, already on record. A reading of the paragraph 5 of the said reply on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands became assumed through rapat No. 71 dated 2.3.2006. Moreover, a reading of paragraph 8 of the reply on affidavit, also discloses that the total assessed compensation amount, under the Award (supra) became tendered at the time of announcement of the award, and, that the entire compensation amount towards the petition land(s) has been paid.
6. The effect of the above, is that, thereby the petitioners are deemed to accept the validity of the launching of the acquisition proceedings, whereby they are rather estopped form challenging the validity 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 10:00:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:086906-DB CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M) -3- of the launching of the acquisition proceedings.
7. In consequence, since both the above events took place prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2013, resultantly, in terms of the verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra), the present petitioners are not entitled to make any espousal before this Court, that a lapsing declaration be made in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. In sequel, the above made writ claim is declined.
8. Moreover, the plea of the petitioners qua theirs still lawfully retaining physical possession over the subject lands, is a mis-founded plea, as, the occupation of the petitioners, over the subject lands rather is as trespassers thereovers and the petitioners are required to be lawfully evicted therefroms.
9. Even otherwise, the notification for acquisition became issued in the year 2005, therefore, the institution of the instant writ petition, rather in the year 2018, makes it to become imbued with gross pervasive stains of delay and laches.
10. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled "M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. V/s State of Haryana and others", reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698, has in the relevant paragraph of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant lawfully fully terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion as existing in the instant petition, is but required to be declared as misconstituted.
"Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 10:00:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:086906-DB CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M) -4- further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana [J] 1995 (8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 284] and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) 325], this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 1 SCC 124], this Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narsimha Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8) SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Hari Om Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687]; Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494] and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC 394] wherein this Court had held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [JT 1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 10:00:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:086906-DB CWP No. 1065 of 2018 (O&M) -5- approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under Section 11."
11. Conspicuously also since it has been stated, in the reply on affidavit, placed on record by the learned State counsel, that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout plans, thereby when they are facilitating the relevant public purposes. Consequently, when public purpose than the ill individualistic interest is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Courts finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE July 12, 2024 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 10:00:57 :::