PURUSHOTTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Sec. 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, exception is sought to an order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 1719/1999 whereby, challenge made to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been rejected. Even though various grounds are raised, an interlocutory application has been filed and it is said that now in view of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013), the acquisition be lapsed and appeal be allowed and disposed of in terms thereof. The M.P. Housing Board with a view to establish and implement a land development scheme approached the State Government and in the year 1987 -88, the Collector, Bhopal and the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal, initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquiring 25.57 acres of land bearing Khasras No. 57, 58, 59, 60, 69 and 70 situated in Village Khajuri kala, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal. Challenging this acquisition proceeding, Purushhotam Lal and others filed a writ petition before the Writ Court being Writ Petition No. 17.19/1999 raising various grounds to say that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is illegal. By an order passed on 6.3.2003, the learned writ Court having rejected the prayer made by Purushottam Lal and others, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) Even though various grounds are raised to say that the acquisition proceedings are illegal and cannot be sustained, during the pendency of the matter, I.A. No. 15129/2014 was filed seeking amendment in the writ appeal and pointing out that after coming into force of Act of 2013 w.e.f. 1.1.2014 and in view of Sec. 24 of the said Act and particularly, the provisions of Sec. 24(2), now after the award was passed in the year 1991 and as till date no compensation has been paid to the land owners or beneficiaries nor is the same deposited in the accounts of the beneficiaries, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the land should be restored back to the appellants. Accordingly, it is contended that in accordance to the Act of 2013 the appeal should be allowed and land restored back to the appellants.

(3.) Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, took us through the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Act of 2013, particularly, sub -section (2), meaning and import of the words "payment of compensation" or deposit of the same in the Court as contemplated under Sec. 31 of the Act of 1984, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another v/s. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others [ : (2014) 3 SCC 183]; Union of India and others v/s. Shiv Raj and others [ : (2014) 6 SCC 564]; Bimla Devi and others v/s. State of Haryana - : (2014) 6 SCC 583; Bharat Kumar v/s. State of Haryana and another [ : (2014) 6 SCC 586], and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharma Agro Industries v/s. State of Haryana and others [ : (2015) 3 SCC 341], argued that now as the award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been passed more than five years back prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and as compensation has not been paid to the beneficiaries, the law laid down in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), will squarely apply and land is liable to be restored back to the petitioners, they also referred to reply filed by the respondents, particularly, M.P. Housing Board to the applications in question and pointed out that Housing Board has only deposited the compensation with the State Government namely, Collector, Bhopal but as the amount is not paid to the beneficiaries, the ingredients necessary for invoking Sec. 24 of the Act of 2013 are made out.