RATTAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals were admitted before the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity '2013 Act'). Upon commencement thereof, the Appellants have changed the tack of their challenge by seeking to invoke the deemed lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. As we have repeatedly opined, any determination under this Section must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.2014, by at least five years, i.e., the Award must have been passed on or before 1.1.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the regime of the 2013 Act.

(2.) In the matter before us, a Section 4 Notification was issued on 13.11.1959, followed by a Section 6 Declaration on 12.7.1966. An Award was finally passed on 24.6.1968. The first requirement is thus made out. The possession of the land appears to be in dispute, as the Appellants allege that mere paper possession has been taken by the Respondent, while the Respondent alleges that possession was taken on 18.1.2000. Sagaciously, learned Counsel for the Appellants has steered away from this controversy. Instead, the Appellants allege that compensation has not been paid to them as is evident from the affidavit of the Respondent where it has asseverated thus:

(3.) The Respondent, on the other hand, has sought to contend that the procedure for payment of compensation is that after the announcement of the Award, the land owners make applications before the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation by submitting documents showing their title to the land and by executing a surety bond. This procedure was followed by other land owners who then received the compensation due to them. Since the Appellants chose not to comply with this procedure, it cannot be said that the compensation was not paid to them.