Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Lal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 March, 2025
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: 11.3.2025
Date of Decision: 27.3.2025
Ram Lal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Argued by: Mr. D.K.Tuteja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana,
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana
for the respondents-State.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate,
Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate,
Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, Advocate,
Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and
Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate
for respondent-HUDA.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of
notification dated 9.9.2013 (Annexure P-1), and, also seeks the quashing of
notification dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-2). 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 29.12.2015
has also been asked to be quashed, and, set aside.
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
2. The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024. The operative part of the said
order is extracted hereinafter.
“………..Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the
matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration
of all the other issues on merits that have been raised in the
respective petitions in accordance with law……..”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues, that
since the notifications (supra) as became passed under Section 4 and under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act of 1894”), were so passed, thus prior coming into force of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”).
However, when the date of making of the award (supra), thus occurred
subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 2013. Therefore, he argues
that no legal relevance can become assigned to the issuance of the
notifications (supra).
4. Therefore, he submits that the notification(s) (supra), are
required to be quashed, and, set aside, thus on the ground, that since on the
date of the award (supra), the ‘Act of 2013’ had assumed force thus, thereby
the proceedings for acquisition were required to be launched under the ‘Act
of 2013’, than under the ‘Act of 1894’.
5. The above raised contention before this Court by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, is no longer res integra, as it becomes completely
answered by a verdict drawn by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as
“Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd. And others V Deepak Aggarwal and others” to which Civil Appeal
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -3-
No.5947-5948 of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16631-16632 of 2018
became assigned. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.31 of the verdict
(supra), paragraph whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter, had thereins
formulated the question of law, thus for an answer being rendered thereons.
“31. Now, we will consider the other common questions
involved in the captioned appeals. They pertain to the questions
as to whether Section 4 notification issued under the L.A. Act
prior to 01.01.2014 (date of commencement of 2013 Act) could
continue or survive after 01.01.2014 and, as to whether Section
6 notification under the L.A. Act could be issued after
01.01.2014.”
6. A reading of the hereinabove extracted formulated question of
law, reveals that the issue which engaged the Hon’ble Apex Court
appertained to whether the initiation of proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’,
commenced on the date of the making of a notification under Section 4 of
the said Act, or whether the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the
‘Act of 1894’, commenced on the date of making of a declaration under
Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’. It appears that the reason for the drawing of
questions of law (supra), arose from the provisions occurring in Section
24(1) of the ‘Act of 2013’, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter.
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894,–
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DBCWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -4-
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act
has not been repealed.”
7. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court was engaged in making an
interpretation of the phraseology “proceedings initiated under the ‘Act of
1894’, as occurs in Section 24(1) of the ‘Act of 2013’. In rendering an answer
to the above question of law, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.32
thereof, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, had expostulated,
that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’, thus
occurs on the date of making of a notification under Section 4 of the said
Act, and, that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of
1894’, does not occur, on the date of issuance of a declaration under Section
6 of the ‘Act of 1894’.
“We think that while considering those questions we will have
to bear in mind the purposes and the legislative history of the
2013 Act and also the intention of the legislature in drafting the
same in the manner in which it now exists. We have already
dealt with those aspects. One crucial aspect discernible from
Section 24(1)(a) has also to be taken note of in this context. The
combined effect of Section 24(1) and clause (a) thereof is that if
land acquisition proceeding under the L.A. Act was initiated
prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of the 2013
Act, and if it was not culminated in an award under Section 11
of the L.A. Act, then all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating
to the determination of compensation should apply to such
acquisition proceedings. Thus, it is obvious that in case of non-
passing of an award in terms of Section 11 of the L.A. Act
where the acquisition proceedings have been initiated prior to
01.01.2014, all provisions under the 2013 Act relating to the
determination of compensation alone would apply to such
acquisition proceedings. In other words, it would mean that in
such circumstances the land acquisition proceedings should4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DBCWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -5-
continue, but all the provisions relating to the determination of
compensation under the 2013 Act alone will be applicable to
such proceedings, meaning thereby, the 2013 Act would come
into play only at that stage. There can be no doubt with respect
to the position that between the initiation of land acquisition
proceedings by issuance and publication of notice under
Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and the stage at which
compensation for the acquisition calls for determination, there
are various procedures to be followed to make the acquisition
in accordance with the law. The question is when Section 24(1)
of the 2013 Act makes it clear with necessary implication that
all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of
compensation alone would be applicable to such proceedings
initiated under the L.A. Act but, not culminated in an award,
how the procedures are to be regulated during the intervening
period till the proceedings reach the stage of determination of
compensation. There cannot be any uncertainty on that aspect.
The procedures to be undertaken and the manner in which they
are to be regulated cannot remain uncertain. They are
conducted either in the manner provided under the L.A. Act or
in the manner provided under the 2013 Act. But then, in view of
Section 24(1)(a), the provisions relating to the determination of
compensation alone can be applied to such proceedings or in
other words, there is only a restricted application of the
provisions of the 2013 Act in relation to such proceedings. The
inevitable conclusion can only be that what is applicable to the
various procedures to be undertaken during the period up to
the stage of determination of compensation are those
prescribed under the L.A. Act. We have no doubt that without
such a construction, the provisions under Section 24(1)(a)
would not work out, in view of the restrictive application of the
2013 Act. It is in this context that the decision in Ambica
Quarry Works’ case (supra) assumes relevance. Any
construction of the said provision without taking into the5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DBCWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -6-
legislative intention, referred hereinbefore would defeat the
legislative intention as also the very objects of the 2013 Act.
Certainly, it would not be in public interest to allow such
proceedings to lapse or allow the authorities to follow the
procedures during such period according to their sweet will. A
uniform procedure has to be followed in respect of such
proceedings. The acquisitions initiated for public purposes
should go on in a fair and transparent manner with a view to
achieve the intent and purport of the 2013 Act and at the same
time, the persons affected shall have definite idea about the
manner in which procedures would be conducted. The Party
‘B’ would not be justified in describing such situations of
necessity and the consequential application of provisions which
are actually saved on account of the construction of Section 24
as an attempt to bring the words expressly employed in Section
24(1)(b) and absent in Section 24(1)(a), by indirect method to
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The aforesaid conclusions and
findings would make the contentions of Party ‘B’ that Section
4(1) notification issued prior to 01.01.2014 could not survive
after 01.01.2014 and also that Section 6 notification under the
L.A. Act could not be issued after 01.01.2014, unsustainable. In
fact, all such procedures and formalities shall be continued till
the determination of compensation by applying all the
provisions for determination of compensation, under the 2013
Act. A contra-construction, in view of the restrictive application
of the provisions to such proceedings during its continuance,
would make the provisions under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013
Act unworkable.”
8. Moreover, while making the above interpretation to the above
statutory phraseology, which occurs in the ‘Act of 2013’, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in paragraph 32 carried in verdict (supra), thus proceeded to declare,
that if the notification under Section 4 of the ‘Act of 1894’, is issued prior to
the coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, thereby if the award, which was
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -7-
otherwise to be drawn in terms of Section 11, of the ‘Act of 1894’, thus is not
drawn prior to the coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, or is drawn on
coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, yet the Acquiring Authority
concerned, rather in terms of the provisions extracted (supra), becoming
endowed with or being preserved a liberty, to yet proceed to make an award
under the ‘Act of 1894’, besides the making of an award under the ‘Act of
1894’, thus post the coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, rather assuming
force. Importantly, yet the compensation being amenable to become
determined in terms of the statutory principles contemplated under the ‘Act
of 2013’.
9. In consequence, it has to be now determined, whether the
Acquiring Authority concerned, issued the notification under Section 4 of
the Act of 1894, thus prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2013,
inasmuch as, whether the said notification became issued prior to
01.01.2014, thus whereons the ‘Act of 2013’ assumed force and/or came into
operation.
10. In the above regard, it is not disputed, that the notifications as
issued respectively under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, and, under Section 6
of the Act of 1894 were issued respectively on 09.9.2013, and, on
31.12.2013, and when the date of issuance of the said notifications, is prior
to the coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’. Therefore, in terms of the
verdict (supra), the acquisition proceedings became initiated as such under
the ‘Act of 1894’. Consequently, even if the date of making of the award
which became passed in consequence thereof, was passed but after coming
into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, inasmuch as, it became rendered on
29.12.2015. Nonetheless, the trite factum of issuance of the notifications
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -8-
(supra) rather on a date, but prior to the coming into force of the ‘Act of
2013’, has the conspicuous relevance and import, thus for therebys validating
the subsequently issued award passed qua the subject lands.
11. Furthermore, it is further indicated in the reply on affidavit that
possession of the acquired lands became assumed vide rapat roznamcha No.
263 dated 29.12.2015. Moreover, the assessed compensation amount under
award (supra), comprised in a sum of Rs. 3,35,42,702/- became tendered
before the learned Reference Court concerned, on 5.03.2022 vide demand
draft No. 200094 dated 05.03.2022 and the same is readily available for its
disbursement to the petitioner upon moving an appropriate application by
him in this regard. In addition, the entire compensation has been calculated
as per the parameters laid down in the ‘Act of 2013’. Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings but have become fully and lawfully concluded but
subject to the compensation determined under the award concerned, thus
being made in terms of the ‘Act of 2013’.
12. Even otherwise, the notification for acquisition became issued
in the year 2013, therefore, the institution of the instant writ petition, rather
in the year 2016, makes it to become imbued with gross pervasive stains of
delay and laches.
13. 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
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -9-
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
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)
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044315-DB
CWP No. 1851 of 2016 (O&M) -10-
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
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.
14. Conspicuously also since it has been stated, in the reply on
affidavit, already on record, 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 of the petitioner is rather to be furthered. Resultantly, this Court
finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it.
Final Order of this Court.
15. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and,
with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned
notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and affirmed.
16. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
March 27, 2025
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:16:33 :::
[ad_1]
Source link