LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-221

BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 29, 2022
BHIM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dtd. 4/11/1977 and 1/11/1980, respectively; followed by the award dtd. 2/9/1986, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as Residential areas in Sector 34 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area; 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.

(2.) Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provisions 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 of India in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 penultimate paragraph of which is reproduced here in 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 forfive 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.