ONKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dtd. 2/5/2001 and 30/4/2002 respectively; followed by the award dtd. 27/4/2004, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 15, Jagadhari; qua the land of the petitioners; 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. Further, challenge has been made to the speaking order dtd. 10/11/2016 passed by respondent no. 2 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners under Sec. 24(2) of Act of 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 whose penultimate paragraph is reproduced herein below:-

(3.) The word 'or' used in Sec. 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Sec. 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.