SHEO RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dtd. 20/4/1990 and 18/4/1991 respectively; followed by the award dtd. 23/3/1993, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial, Institutional area, recreational zone and open space in Sector 44, 45 and 46, Gurugram; qua the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 23//23/1 measuring 2100 sq. yards situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Kanhai, Tehsil and District Gurugram; has lapsed in view of the provisions of Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013'). Though the prayer in the petition is only limited to lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, however, in the petition the petitioners have placed reliance on order dtd. 18/12/2002, 26/6/2012, 22/8/2012 to demonstrate that the respondents are discriminating with the petitioners as they have released the land of the other land owners after passing of the award.

(2.) Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provision of Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, like many other writ petitions, the proceedings in the instant petition were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 penultimate paragraph of which is reproduced here in below:-

(3.) That 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 be 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, the 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 a new cause of action to question the 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 the Act of 2013.