Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pankaj Manga & Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 April, 2024

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996                          -1- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH.

                                             CWP-2303-1996 ( O & M)
                                             Reserved on: 09.04.2024
                                             Pronounced on: 24.04.2024

PANKAJ MANGA AND ORS.                                          .....Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                                     ....Respondents

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Argued by: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate
           for the petitioners.

               Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
               Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

                                  ****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the

quashing of notification bearing No. LAC (F)-92/NTLA/179 dated

10.12.1992 (Annexure P-1), and, also seek the quashing of notification

bearing No. LAC (F)-NTLA-93/245 dated 07.12.1993 (Annexure P-3).

The said notification(s) were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') thus for

the public purpose namely, development of residential Sectors 1 and 2,

Palwal.

2. The principal ground as raised in the instant writ petition

rather by the petitioners for theirs seeking the writ reliefs, is grounded

in the factum, that the subject properties, though became raised on the

disputed lands but prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4

of the 'Act of 1894' yet the acquiring authority not releasing them from

acquisition.

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -2- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

3. Moreover, the further ground as raised in the instant writ

petition rather for challenging the Annexures (supra), is rested, on the

premise that the acquiring authority in not releasing the subject lands

from acquisition, thereby it has breached the mandate of this Court

recorded on 03.02.2012, upon CWP No. 15546 of 1995 and other

connected petition(s), whereby this Court after quashing the impugned

therein acquisition notification(s), rather proceeded to permit the land

losers therein to retain possession over the subject lands.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued, that

when there is almost close identicality inter-se the notification(s)

challenged in the said petition, and, in the instant writ petition, thereby

but naturally the relief as became granted in the verdict (supra), is also

to be accorded to the present petitioners.

5. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the

relief as claimed in the instant petition thus for quashing the

notification(s) (supra), as became made respectively under Sections 4

and 6 of the 'Act of 1894', rather is not required to be accorded nor any

relief relating to the petitioners being permitted to yet invoke the

provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short called as 'the Act of 2013'), thus is to

be accorded to them.

6. The subject lands are comprised in Khasra Nos. 34//27

(5K-10M), 1936 (1K-12M) situated in Village Palwal, District Palwal.

The said lands are stated in the reply, on affidavit furnished to the

instant writ petition by the respondent concerned, to be acquired

through the impugned notification(s).

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -3- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

7. It is also stated in the reply, on affidavit, that at the time of

launching of acquisition proceedings, the subject lands were vacant

and/or no construction(s) existed thereovers.

8. Furthermore, since it is also stated in the reply, on affidavit

that the petitioners had filed objections under Section 5A of the 'Act of

1894', therebys seeking the making of an order for release of the subject

lands/construction(s), as became raised by the petitioners, but the said

objections are stated to be rejected, but after an opportunity of hearing

being granted to the present petitioners, thus on the ground that the

subject lands were entirely vacant at the time of issuance of a

notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894' and the same are

required for the purpose of the development of the area. Therefore, it is

contended that the order dismissing the objections, as became raised by

the present petitioners against the acquisition of the subject

lands/construction(s), thus is both a well informed, besides a well made

order and does not require any interference.

9. Be that as it may, since it is also stated in the reply, on

affidavit that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout

plan besides are direly required for completing the developmental

works, inasmuch as the subject lands affect not only the green belt,

besides also affect the site of the 9 meter road, and also affect the site of

the primary school. If so, the petitioners cannot raise any claim for this

Court making any tinkerings with the layout plans, as therebys this

Court would be making ill tinkerings with the said layout plans.

10. Furthermore, it is also stated, on reply on affidavit, that an

immense expenditure has been incurred by the respondent concerned, in

undertaking various developmental activities over the acquired lands.

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -4- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

Resultantly also therebys this Court cannot make any order for

releasing the petitioners lands, as therebys the expending of substantial

sums of monies towards developmental works over the acquired lands,

thus would become rendered nugatory, wherebys loss would ensue to

the public exchequer.

11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying

upon the decision made by this Court, upon CWP No. 15546 of 1995,

titled as 'Gulshan Malik and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors'

decided on 03.02.2012, have argued that in terms thereof, the instant

writ petition be also allowed.

12. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the

reliance as made upon the said decision is a mis-placed reliance, as the

verdict (supra) became confined but only in respect of the lands located

in District Faridabad, and, did not relate to the lands appertaining to

Sector - 2 , Palwal, especially when the connected petition(s)

appertaining to Sector - 2, Palwal, were ordered to be listed for further

hearing, besides when the notification(s) challenged in the verdict

(supra), and, also the awards, as became rendered in the said writ

petition(s) rather are distinct from the notification(s) challenged in the

instant writ petition, besides the award rendered in the writ petition

(supra) is contra distinct to the award rendered in the instant case.

Resultantly, therebys there is no well founded leverage in the

petitioners for theirs claiming parity with the petitioners in the writ

petition (supra).

13. It further appears that on the basis of verdict (supra), the

petitioners were able to get the mutation of Khasra No. 1936 (6K-7M)

falling in Village Palwal, District Palwal attested in their favour from

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -5- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

the revenue officer concerned, but it has been stated that the process

qua the rectification of the said mutation as untenably made in favour

of the petitioners, is underway, especially when the said mutation has

been made on a mis propounded claim of parity to the petitioners in the

instant writ petition rather with the petitioners in the writ petition

(supra).

14. Consequently, it is directed, that the said apposite

process/application for rectification of the mutation recorded in favour

of the present petitioners, thus be expedited and be also ensured to be

expeditiously concluded.

15. Furthermore, from a perusal of reply, on affidavit, it is

revealed that possession of the land of the petitioners falling in Khasra

No. 1936 (1K-12M) of village Palwal, District Palwal, became assumed

through rapat roznamcha No. 304 dated 06.12.1995, whereafter the

possession thereof was handed over to the beneficiary department and

award No. 19 dated 06.12.1995 was pronounced in respect of the said

Khasra number.

16. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on

affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent concerned,

that out of total amount of assessed compensation, qua 94 % thereof

rather becomes disbursed to the land losers concerned. Furthermore, it

has been stated that as far as the compensation of the land of the

petitioners is concerned, despite the same becoming tendered, yet the

petitioners not seeking disbursement(s) thereof, leading to the same

becoming deposited in the Court of Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Palwal, for therebys it becoming available for becoming released

to the land losers concerned.

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -6- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

17. Therefore, the effect of the above, is naturally qua the

respondent concerned, thus adducing adequate discharging evidence in

respect of the hereafter duo of parameters, as, spelt by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in its verdict rendered in case titled as 'Indore Development

Authority Versus Manoharlal and others', to which SLP (Civil) Nos.

9036-9038 of 2016, has been assigned,

a) Rapat possession becoming assumed over the acquired

lands by the acquiring authority before the coming into force of the 'Act

of 2013') ;

b) the assessed compensation amount becoming deposited

for thereby it becoming released to the land losers concerned, especially

when the said deposits have been made prior to the coming into force of

the 'Act of 2013'.

18. Resultantly the petitioners also therebys cannot claim the

making of a lapsing declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 'Act of

2013'.

19. Since, therebys the subject lands becomes free from all

encumbrances and are completely vested in the acquiring authority.

Resultantly therebys the occupation of the petitioners, over the subject

lands rather is as trespassers thereovers and the petitioners are required

to be lawfully vacated therefroms.

20. Furthermore, though the petitioners in the alternative claim

that since no award with regard to Khasra No. 34//27 (5K-10M) of

Village Palwal, District Palwal has been pronounced within the period

of limitation prescribed in Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894', thereby the

acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Resultantly, it is contended that if

the subject lands are required for the public purpose, thereby a fresh

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -7- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

award be directed to be made in terms of the relevant provisions, as

encapsulated in the 'Act of 2013'.

21. However, the above argument is merit-less, as evidently,

on the date of pronouncement of the subject lands award, there was a

stay/status quo order in operation with respect to the land falling in

Khasra No. 34//27 (5K-10M) of village Palwal, District Palwal.

Consequently, when on account of pendency of the instant writ petition

or on account of the interim order of stay, as became passed by this

Court, thus the Collector concerned became precluded to make an

award in terms of Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894'.

22. Consequently, when in the above said situation, the

Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled as 'Faizabad-

Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad Versus Dr. Rajesh Kumar

Pandey and Others ; 2022 Live Law (SC) 504, made the hereinafter

extracted expostulations of law, qua the pendency of the judicial

proceedings or the passing of any interim order, when the relevant

proceedings are subjudice before a Court of Law, thus causing a well

deterrence upon the acquiring authority, to make an award in terms of

Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894'. The relevant paragraphs No. 10.12 and

10.13, and 17 (i) thereof are extracted hereinafter.

10.12 Thus, it is necessary to dwell into the reasons as to

why no award has been made. As discussed aforesaid, if

there is an order of restraint on the Collector or on the

acquiring authority and as a result of which, the Collector

or the Land Acquisition Officer is not in a position to make

an award for reasons beyond his control and in

compliance of the interim order granted by a court of law

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -8- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

at the instance of the land owner or any other person who

may have questioned the acquisition, the period during

which the interim order has operated has to be reckoned

and if on the date of enforcement of Act, 2013 i.e.,

01.01.2014, no award has been made owing to the

operation of such an interim order granted by a Court in

favour of the land owner, then the provisions of the 2013,

Act cannot straightaway be made applicable in the

determination of the compensation. This is because, but

for the operation of the interim order, the award could

have been made under the provisions of the Act, 1894 until

31.12.2013 and then provisions of Act, 1894 would have

applied as per clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 24.

But on the other hand, owing to the operation of the

interim order granted by a Court in favour of land owner,

the award would not have been made as on 01.01.2014

when the Act, 2013 was enforced.

10.13 In our view in such a situation the acquiring

authority cannot be burdened with the determination of

compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. In

other words, the land owner cannot, on the one hand,

assail the acquisition and seek interim orders restraining

the authorities from proceeding further in the acquisition,

and on the other hand, contend that since no award has

been made under Section 11 of Act, 1894 on 01.01.2014,

the provisions of the Act, 2013 should be made applicable

in determining the compensation.

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056256-DB

CWP-2303-1996 -9- 2024:PHHC:056256-DB

17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

it is observed as under:-

(i) It is concluded and held that in a case where on the

date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared

under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of

any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the

Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the

compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and

they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the

Act, 1894.

23. The import of the above expostulations, is that, the non

rendition of awards under the 'Act of 1894', when arises from stay

orders becoming granted by the Courts of Law, thereby the launching

of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', thus would not

become lapsed, rather the Collector concerned, may in terms of Section

11 of the 'Act of 1894', thus make an award.

24. Therefore, this Court in tandem therewith concludes that in

respect of those tracts of lands qua which no award became passed,

owing to the operation of the apposite orders of stay, thus becoming

granted by this Court, therebys the Collector concerned, may in terms

of the explanation carried in Section 11-A of the 'Act of 1894', thus

proceed to make the awards.