Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surjit Kaur vs State Of Haryana . on 22 August, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S).8104 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16176 of 2006
SURJIT KAUR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8105 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16444/2006)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8106 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 16967/2006)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8107 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 18346/2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8108 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9918/2007
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The High Court has in a batch of writ petitions challenging a Notification dated 23rd January, 2003, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held that the writ petitioners had been given adequate opportunity under Section 5-A of the said Act to file their objections and wherever the objections were filed by the land-owners the same had been properly considered. The High Court in that view did not see any reason to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings especially when it accepted the case set up by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.08.27 respondents 16:54:16 IST Reason: that no construction existed on the land under acquisition as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the 2 present appeals to assail the correctness of the said findings of the High Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. The filing of the objections and the procedure adopted by the Authorities for consideration of the same leading to the issue of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act and the making of an award having been found to be free from any legal infirmity, there is no reason for us to strike a discordant note on the available material. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants all the same submitted that since neither the possession of the land in-question has been taken over by the Authorities nor has the amount of compensation been paid to the appellants the entire proceedings ought to lapse in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This position is disputed by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State of Haryana who submitted that no such plea had been raised before the High Court nor is there any specific averment regarding possession or compensation raised in the special leave petitions. At any rate the dispute whether the proceedings have lapsed on account of the alleged non-payment of compensation and the alleged non-taking over of the possession from the appellants by the Authorities, would require some investigation which could be better left with the 3 High Court.
There is, in our opinion, merit in the submission made by Mr. Hooda. The High Court did not have any occasion to examine whether the proceedings already initiated have lapsed on account of alleged non-payment of compensation to the owners and the failure of the Authorities to take over the possession of the land acquired from them. That was obviously because the new land acquisition Act has come into force w.e.f. 1 st January, 2014 whereas the impugned judgment was delivered by the High Court much earlier on 15th May, 2006. Be that as it may, the new Act having come into force during the pendency of these proceedings, we see no reason why the effect of Section 24 cannot be examined by the High Court. That is because certain factual aspects may also have to be examined especially regarding the alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking over of possession from the appellants. We are therefore of the view instead of this Court examining the issues itself it would be better if the matter is remitted back to the High Court to examine the said aspect and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
In the result, we affirm the order passed by the High Court holding that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been properly concluded but remit the matter back to the High Court to examine the limited question whether the said proceedings have lapsed on account of the provisions of Section 24 of the new land acquisition Act. 4 The parties are free to file additional affidavits and documents before the High Court to enable the High Court to undertake that exercise. We further direct that status quo as it exists today in regard to the disputed property shall be maintained by the parties, pending disposal of the matter by the High Court.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 22nd AUGUST, 2014 5 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).16176/2006 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2006 in CWP No. 13519/2004 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SURJIT KAUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. For placing on record photographs and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 16444/2006 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 16967/2006 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 18346/2006 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9918/2007 (With appln.(s) for permission to file rejoinder affidavit and Interim Relief) Date : 22/08/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashish Mohan,Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma,Adv. Mr. Pawan Shukla,Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv.
Mr. Prem Malhotra,Adv. Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Narender Hooda,AAG Mr. Vikas Sahran,Adv.6
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, the appeals are disposed of:
“In the result, we affirm the order passed by the High Court holding that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been properly concluded but remit the matter back to the High Court to examine the limited question whether the said proceedings have lapsed on account of the provisions of Section 24 of the new land acquisition Act. The parties are free to file additional affidavits and documents before the High Court to enable the High Court to undertake that exercise. We further direct that status quo as it exists today in regard to the disputed property shall be maintained by the parties, pending disposal of the matter by the High Court.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.” (Mahabir Singh) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file)