SWATANTRA BHARAT WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the issue involved in the instant writ petition is whether the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner have lapsed under Sec. 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(2.) Before entering into the respective pleadings by the parties, it needs necessary mention that owing to the pendency of interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petition including the present one wherein the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was sought to be invoked, were kept pending; awaiting the outcome of the issue at hand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. After seeing various interpretations, the controversy erupted was finally set at rest by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal cited as AIR 2020 SC 1496. The penultimate para of the judgment is reproduced here in below:-

(3.) The sum and substance of the interpretation of Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Supreme Court is that the first and foremost condition to seek lapsing is that both the contingencies provided i.e. about the physical possession and the payment of compensation are to be fulfilled, meaning thereby, if either of the conditions is not satisfied, there would no lapsing. As far as the obligation to make the payment in lieu of the land acquired is concerned, it has been clarified that such obligation to pay is complete by tendering the compensation which would mean that the compensation amount was made available to the land owner and if he has not accepted the same, it will not be available for the land owner to claim that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word 'deposit' has been interpreted to mean depositing with the LAC or the treasury or the reference court. Drawing of panchnama has been considered to be a valid proof of taking physical possession and once the land stands vested in the State, there is no divesting provided under Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The Supreme Court has further clarified that the period for which any interim order was in operation, will be excluded while computing the gap period of five years. Similarly, it has been clarified that Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition as it applies to only those cases wherein the proceedings were pending on the date of enforcement of Act of 2013.