Allahabad High Court

Satrohan & 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. ... on 24 November, 2017

Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Abdul Moin




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- LAND ACQUISITION No. - 1816 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Satrohan & 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Housing & Urban Planning &Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jageshwari Prasad Mathur,Raj Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Mukund Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. We have heard Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Lucknow Development Authority.

2. The petitioners' land was acquired by a notification dated 11.9.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.2.2001 and an award was made on 21st October, 2008. The petitioners contended that Pot No.250 measuring 0.212 hectare situate in Village Ahimamau, Tahsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow is still in their possession and further no compensation was paid to the petitioners. It was also contended that even the compensation has not been deposited by the respondents before any court. The petitioners thus contend that in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"), the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

3. The State-respondents No.2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit contending that 87% of the land owners have been paid compensation and that about 95% of the tenure holders in Village Ahimamau have also been paid compensation. The Collector in his counter affidavit, however, admitted that insofar as Plot No.250 is concerned, the petitioners were not paid compensation and that in any case the respondents deposited the compensation before the appropriate court on 16.11.2014. The respondents thus contended that the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is not available to the petitioners.

4. Lucknow Development Authority has filed a counter affidavit and has reiterated the same contentions. In addition to the aforesaid, the Authority contended that it is in physical possession of the property in question, which was taken on 14.5.2002 and that the petitioners have encroached upon the property subsequently without any authority of law. On the question of deposit of compensation, the respondents contended that it is the responsibility of the State to deposit the amount in the court and not with the authority.

5. The question that is to be decided by this Court is, whether the acquisition proceeding, which was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act has lapsed in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 or not. In our opinion, the controversy involved is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs Harak Chand Misrimal Solanki and Others reported in 2014(32) LCD 481.

6. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was followed in Bimla Devi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others (2014) 6 SCC 583 at para 3; Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Shiv Raj and others (2014) 6 SCC 564 at para 22: (AIR 2014 SC 2242); Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 at para 14; State of Haryana Vs. Vinod Oil and General Mills, 2014 (15) SCC 410 at para 21; Sita Ram Vs. State of Haryana & another (2015) 3 SCC 597 at paras 19, 21: (2014 AIR SCW 6625); Ram Kishan & others Vs. State of Haryana & others (2015) 4 SCC 347 at paras 8, 9, 12: (AIR 2015 SC 440); Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India & others, 2015 (4) SCC 325 at para 15.

7. The Supreme Court again in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skukhbir Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SCC 4275 held that the statutory scheme of the old Act, 1894 makes it apparently clear that the Collector was required to tender the payment of compensation awarded to the persons, who are interested and entitled thereto according to the award. Such person had to be paid the sum mentioned in the award. Further, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the Collector to make the payment as soon as possible after making the award and only in a situation where the person interested refuses to receive the compensation payable or where no person competent is there to receive the compensation or in the eventuality that there is a dispute as to the title to receive compensation or its apportionment, in that eventuality, the Collector was required to deposit the amount of compensation in the reference court. The Supreme Court held:

"12. Section 24 (1) begins with a non-obstante clause and covers situations where either no award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply, or where an award has been made under Section 11, land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act had not been repealed.

13. To Section 24(1)(b) an important exception is carved out by Section 24(2). The necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) are as follows:

(a)Section 24(2) begins with a non-obstante clause keeping sub-section (1) out of harm's way;

(b) For it to apply, land acquisition proceedings should have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act;

(d) Physical possession of the land, if not taken, or compensation, if not paid, are fatal to the land acquisition proceeding that had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act;

(e) The fatality is pronounced by stating that the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall, in this game of snakes and ladders, start all over again.

14. The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section 24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. These steps include the taking of physical possession of land and payment of compensation. What the legislature is in effect telling the executive is that they ought to have put their house in order and completed the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement of award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is important to notice that the Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not completed within five years after pronouncement of the award. This may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of five years. A faint submission to the effect that ''or' should be read as ''and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural meaning of the sub-section does not lead to any absurdity for us to replace language advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly, the object of the Act, and Section 24 in particular, is that in case an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily presumed that the balance between the citizen's right to retain his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for a public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been paid within this period, it is also statutorily presumed that the aforesaid balance gets disturbed so as to free such property from acquisition."

8. In the light of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear from the admitted position that the award was made on 21.10.2008, which is more than five years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. There is a dispute as to when physical possession of the land was taken by the respondents. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the court to dwell on this aspect as it becomes immaterial since the second ingredient of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would cover the situation, namely, that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

9. The State has now contended that compensation was deposited in the Court on 16.11.2014 and therefore the benefit of Section 24(2) cannot be availed by the petitioners. This contention of the State is patently misconceived. The Supreme Court in the case of Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 1040, has held that deposit made by the Collector, after coming into force the Act of 2013, is immaterial and does not come to the aid of the State Government. The Supreme Court further held that such deposit cannot be termed as "deemed payment". The decision of the Supreme Court fully applies in the instant case. The deposit under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 clearly indicates that the same was required to be made before the Act of 2013 came into picture. The Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 1st of January, 2014 and, till that date, the amount was not deposited. Thus the deposit made subsequently will have no effect insofar as the lapsing of acquisition proceedings are concerned under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

10. In view of the aforesaid, since the compensation for the land in question has not been paid to the petitioners, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 will come into play. We have no hesitation in holding that the acquisition proceedings for Plot No.250 measuring 0.212 hectare has lapsed since compensation was not paid to the petitioners.

11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. We, accordingly hold that acquisition proceedings for Plot No.250 measuring 0.212 hectare is deemed to have lapsed.

Date: 24.11.2017.

Rakesh

(Abdul Moin) (Tarun Agarwala)