DHARAM PARKASH 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 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dtd. 29/11/2001 and 28/11/2002 respectively; followed by the award dtd. 24/11/2004, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, and Commercial Sector 58 Sonepat; qua the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 75//11/3 (3-3), 20(7-12) and 63//16(7-11) total measuring 18K 06M situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Nangal Kalan, Sub Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat; 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.

(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 of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 and penultimate paragraphs thereof are reproduced here in below:-

(3.) The sum and substance of the interpretation of Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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.