Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 05.10.2005 and 06.10.2006 respectively; followed by the award dated 17.10.2008, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sector 59 & 60 in the Revenue Estate of Village Nangal Kalan, Aterna and Sersa, Tehsil & District Sonepat qua the land of the petitioner as has been claimed in the petition, has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. As per the case put forth by the petitioners, they are the owners of 2 Kanal land as co-sharer of the land comprised in Mustil and Killa Nos. 25//12/2 (2K-11M), 19/2(5K-8M), 19/1(2K-4M), 20(7K-12M), 22/1 (2K- 15M), 26//16/2 (5K-7M) total measuring 25K-17M situated in the Revenue estate of village Nangal kalan, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat and they are in continuing cultivating possession of the aforesaid 2Kanal land comprised in Khasra No. 26//16/2. The said land was acquired by the Government of Haryana by issuing of notifications dated 05.10.2005 and 06.10.2006 under Section 4 & 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by award dated 17.10.2008 for the public purpose namely, for development and utilization of land for Residential Sector 59 and 60 Sonepat. The petitioners have relied 4 of 11 upon Khasra Girdawaris of Kharif-Rabbi Crop from October 2010 to September 2013 to show that the possession of the land is still with the petitioners and despite having announced the award on 17.10.2008, the respondents have failed to take the possession of the land in question. Further, they have contended that till date neither the compensation of the acquired land was paid to the petitioners nor was deposited with the Reference Court in accordance with law. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioners contended that after acquisition, major part of the land was released and was handed over to private colonizers who have been granted licenses to develop the land with collaboration with the land owners. Taking all the pleas, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.05.2015, thereby directing the respondent-authorities to decide the representations moved by the petitioners considering all the grounds as raised in the petition. The representation moved by the petitioners was decided and the claim was rejected by passing speaking order dated 04.01.2017.While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, it was noticed that as claimed by the petitioners that they are owners of 2 Kanal land, as per the record the petitioners are owners of the only 20.58 marla land comprised in Khasra No. 25//12/2 (2-11), 19/2 (5-8), 22/1(2-15), 19/1(2-4). The possession of the acquired land was handed over by the LAC to HSIIDC vide Rapat No. 98 dated 17.10.2008 and Sector Road has also been constructed on some portion of the acquired land. As regards the status of compensation, it was noticed in the order that the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 44.59 crores was deposited in account of LAC Sonepat out of which 16.42 crores have been lifted by the land owners 5 of 11 and Rs. 28.17 crores have been deposited in the Reference Court. The petitioners in the instant petition have challenged both the acquisition proceedings as well as the speaking order.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) as none of the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled. The first and foremost requirement for claiming lapsing of acquisition proceedings is to prove that the land owner is in possession of the land in question, which the petitioners have failed to prove as the possession of the land in question was taken by the State by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 98 dated 17.10.2008, which has been held as a valid mode of taking possession. Once such possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the State and who so ever retains or remains in the possession of the land, he is a trespasser, therefore, the reliance on the Khasra Girdawaris as has been placed by the petitioners could only show that the petitioners were using the acquired land as a trespasser and not as an owner. He further submits that the obligation of the State to pay the compensation duly discharged as the entire compensation amount was tendered and was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat and out of the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 44.59 crores, Rs. 14.62 crores have been disbursed to the land owners and an amount of Rs. 28.17 crores, which also includes the compensation amount due to the petitioners, is deposited in the Reference Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that both the contingencies as prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled is meritless as the possession of the land stands duly taken and the compensation amount 6 of 11 stands tendered, thus he has prayed that present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Compensation amount for the land in question was tendered

8. The respondents have categorically pleaded in the written statement that the amount of compensation for the entire acquired land was made available to all the landowners and was deposited with the land 7 of 11 acquisition collector, Sonepat. Further, the amount due towards the land in question has been deposited in the reference Court, therefore, there remains not even an iota of doubt for the fact that the State has duly discharged its obligation to pay the amount of compensation. In this regard, Mr. Mittal has asserted that in view of the exposition in Indore Development Authority (supra) the obligation of the State to pay the compensation is discharged if the amount of compensation is tendered which has been interpreted to mean that the amount was made available to the land owners as observed in Para 203 which is reproduced here in below:-