SUNITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notifications dtd. 17/9/2004 and 27/10/2004 issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dtd. 9/3/2006 in view of Sec. 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has also impugned the order dtd. 1/1/2017, vide which the claim of the petitioner under Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been rejected by the respondents.

(2.) The controversy cropped up around interpretation of Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013 was put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 thereby laying down principles for declaring the acquisition as deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013. The Apex Court has discussed in detail all the aspects necessary and relevant for interpreting Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013, and in this regard a reference is being made to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below:-

(3.) The sum and substance of the interpretation of Sec. 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 by the Supreme Court is that to seek lapsing 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 condition 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 to 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.