Govind Singh vs Comp.Auth./Addl.Distt.Magistrate ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4589 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- LAND ACQUISITION No. - 8535 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Govind Singh
 
Respondent :- Comp.Auth./Addl.Distt.Magistrate (Land Acquisition)Lko & Anr
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Tewari,Avanish Tewari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samidha
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel who has accepted notice for opposite party no.1 and Ms. Samidha, learned counsel who has accepted notice for opposite party no.2.

The writ petition has been filed seeking the following main relief:-

i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Collectorate Compound, Lucknow (opposite party no.1) to declare a fresh award in terms of the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act of 2013 with respect to petitioner land bearing Khasra No.33 situated in the Village Lodhaura, Pargana Peernagar, Tehsil-Sidhauli and District Sitapur.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Collectorate Compound, Lucknow (opposite party no.1) to make the disbursement of the compensation to petitioner as his right has already been declared by the learned Additional District Judge, Sitapur bearing Case no.LAC No.12/2010 dated 08.07.2016, along with the solatium, additional compensation and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Tarseem Singh arising out of SLP (C) No.9599 of 2019) Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019 as well as the ordinance as passed by the Central Government dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure No.5).

As per the case of petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, the land in question was originally in the name of Ramendra Singh. It was acquired for widening of National Highway no.24 situated in Village Lodhaura, Pargana Peernagar, Tehsil-Sidhauli and District Sitapur under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Proceedings under Section 3A and 3D were held and thereafter the basic award was declared by opposite party no.1 vide award dated 27.06.2008. Objections were made against the basic award and the matter was referred to the principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the Act. The reference was decided on the basis of compromise dated 08.07.2016. It is to be noted that after issuance of the basic award dated 27.06.2008, the present petitioner i.e. Govind Singh, son of Cheda Singh has entered into a compromise/settlement with Ramendra Singh in whose name the land in question was recorded in the revenue records. It is also to be noted that the petitioner had got the land in question on the basis of sale deed dated 06.08.2007 from Ramedndra Singh, i.e. after issuance of notification dated 25.09.2006 under Section 3A and notification dated 03.07.2007 under Section 3D of the Act.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the award dated 27.06.2008 shall be modified/rectified and the compensation awarded shall be given in the name of petitioner as at present he is the owner of the land in question and is in possession thereof.

Ms. Samidha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that the basic award dated 27.06.2008 cannot be altered or modified/rectified on the request of petitioner as at the time of acquisition of the land in question he was not the owner of the land in question and he was also not in possession of the same. It is also submitted that Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013) would not be applicable to the case of petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance on decision of the apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 submitted that the apex court has answered the questions raised in the Special Leave Petition. Paragraph 366 of the judgment, which is relevant, for convenience is reproduced below:-

"366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1.Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2.In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

366.3.The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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.

366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

366.5.In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6.The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7.The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.8.The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

366.9.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition."

It is submitted that in para 366.4 of the decision, the apex court has clarified that the expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2). In case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. It is also provided that in the case of non-fulfilment of the obligation under Section 31 of the Act, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. The non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.

It is very much clear from the aforesaid observations of the apex Court that the deposit of compensation with respect to majority of land holdings shall be with respect to land owners as on the date of notification. The petitioner, as noted above, was not the owner of the land in question at the time of acquisition of the land and as such cannot derive any benefit from the findings given by the apex court, as noted above. It is also to be observed that the said judgment would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The award is dated 27.06.2008 and the applicability of the Act of 2013 in the case of National Highways Authority of India is with effect from 01.01.2015.

In view of above, we are of the considered view that petitioner being a subsequent purchaser of the land in question has no right to claim compensation from opposite party.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.3.2021

kvg/-