2015 (1) TMI 1449 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquisition of Land - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - allegation that respondent no. 1 has started acquiring the land without complying with the provisions and in utter violation of the Act of 1995 therefore the acquisition proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed - HELD THAT - The respondent No.2 GMADA has admitted that the possession of the land in question (i.e. about 102 acres) is with the appellants and the appellants have not received the compensation for the said land being acquired by GMADA. The present case is squarely covered by the law laid down in the matter of PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANR. VERSUS HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI ORS. 2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. The physical possession of the land belonging to the appellants have neither been taken by the respondents nor compensation paid to them even though the award was passed on 06.08.2007, and more than five years have lapsed prior to date on which the Act of 2013 came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are satisfied in this case for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 - The said legal principle laid down by this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation with regard to the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, with all fours are applicable to the fact situation in respect of the land covered in these appeals for granting the relief as prayed by the appellants in the applications. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellants' land have lapse - Application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Compliance with the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.
4. Payment and acceptance of compensation by the appellants.
5. Possession of the acquired land.
6. Impact of stay orders on the acquisition process.
7. Retrospective application of amendments to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013
The appellants contended that under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the land acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed as the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013, and neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid. The court agreed with this contention, noting that the possession of the land was still with the appellants and no compensation had been paid.

2. Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings under the L.A. Act
The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with the provisions of the L.A. Act and the principles of promissory estoppel. The court found that the objections raised under Section 5A of the L.A. Act were not decided by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the acquisition notification was issued without addressing these objections.

3. Compliance with the Act of 1995
The appellants alleged that the acquisition was in violation of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

4. Payment and Acceptance of Compensation
The appellants claimed that they had not received any compensation for the acquired land. The court noted that the compensation amount was lying in the Treasury and had not been paid to the appellants, thereby satisfying one of the conditions under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for the proceedings to lapse.

5. Possession of the Acquired Land
The court observed that the possession of the land in question was still with the appellants, as admitted by the respondents in affidavits. This satisfied the second condition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for the proceedings to lapse.

6. Impact of Stay Orders on the Acquisition Process
The respondents argued that the stay orders prevented them from taking possession of the land. The court referred to the judgment in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that Section 24(2) does not exclude the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court orders. Thus, the stay orders did not affect the applicability of Section 24(2).

7. Retrospective Application of Amendments to Section 24(2)
The court noted the amendment to Section 24(2) by the 2014 Ordinance, which excluded the period of stay from the computation of the five-year period. However, the court held that this amendment was prospective and did not apply to the present case, as the appeals and applications were filed before the amendment came into force.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the applications under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, declaring that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellants' land had lapsed. The court quashed the land acquisition notifications concerning the appellants' land and dismissed the related applications for impleadment and intervention.

← Previous Next →