Allahabad High Court
Rameshwar Das Gupta & Another vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 24 April, 2014
Bench: Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No.32
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22113 of 2014
Rameshwar Das Gupta & another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Respondents
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and have perused the record.
The admitted case of the petitioners is that by notification dated 17.9.1996 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the subsequent notification dated 28.10.1996 issued under section 6 of the Act, the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government for respondent no.4. Then as per the Award dated 5.2.2001 passed on the basis of agreement entered into under Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1997"), the petitioners had been paid compensation as per the agreement. In the said Award itself, which has become final, it has been categorically stated that the possession of the land has been taken from the petitioners on 20.1.1998. It is admitted to the petitioners that the compensation has been duly paid to them.
Now after a gap of about 18 years of the notifications, 16 years after the possession of the land has been taken and 13 years after the Award which was passed on the basis of a compromise/agreement under the Rules of 1997, which compensation has been accepted by the petitioners, this writ petition has been filed claiming benefit of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "Act of 2013").
For ready reference, section 24 of the Act of 2013 is reproduced below:-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that actual physical possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioners and as such since the Award in the case was made on 5.2.2001, which was more than five years prior to the commencement of Act of 2013 (which came into force on 1.1.2014) and the actual physical possession of the land has not been taken, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
Except for merely stating in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioners are still in actual physical possession of the entire land which is still lying vacant and filing of some photographs said to be relating to the land in question, there is no proper evidence in the form of any document like Khasra etc. to show that the petitioners still continue in possession of the land.
Even otherwise, once the compensation has been awarded and paid to the petitioners on the basis of an agreement executed under the Rules of 1997, it would be presumed that the possession of the land has been taken over from the petitioners. It is not a case where a normal Award has been passed and thereafter the petitioners had been litigating with regard to the possession being taken from them. Here is a case where after the Award was passed, wherein it was mentioned that the possession of the land has been taken on 20.1.1998, the petitioners kept silent and had accepted the amount awarded and did not dispute the fact at any stage that the possession of the land had not been taken from them, although specifically mentioned to be so in the Award itself.
As such, we are of the firm view that in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 2013. Their claim that they continued in possession of the land even after receiving compensation under the Award, which mentions about the taking over of possession of the land from the petitioners, does not deserve to be accepted. Finality has to be given to a proceeding/transaction at some stage. In the present case, the transaction had been completed once a compromise/agreement had been entered into between the parties and award was passed, which was accepted by the petitioner. After accepting compensation under the award, the petitioners cannot turn around after more than a decade and say that possession (as already mentioned in the award) was not given by or taken from them.
We are further of the view that in case the petitioners had not handed over the possession after the Award had been passed even after receiving compensation and also did not challenge the said proceedings before any competent court or authority by not handing over possession of the land, the petitioners had clearly not conducted themselves properly and had proceeded with a dishonest intention. Such being the position, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief under the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as we are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dt: 24.4.2014
dps
(Naheed Ara Moonis, J) (Vineet Saran, J)
