2015 (10) TMI 2826 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of proceedings of the acquisition of the land of the petitioners - benefit of statutory provisions contemplated under Section 24(2) of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - HELD THAT - Considering either the basic provisions or by various pronouncements the facts of this case are required to be analyzed. In the present case it is not in dispute that final notification under Section 6 for acquisition of the land of the petitioners bearing Survey No.497/1 Khasra No.497/1 area ad measuring 5.696 hectare and the residential house situated at Village Lalguvan Tahsil Rajnagar District Chhatarpur was issued on 26.9.2003. It is also not in dispute that the award was passed under Section 11 on 30.11.2004. The said land was acquisitioned by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the use of respondent No.1 indicating the public purpose - it is concluded that the award was passed more than five years prior to the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 and the said amount has not been paid or deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer to the beneficiaries to observe the requirement of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and the amended ordinance. Thus the proceedings of the land acquisition would lapse so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned. On 7.10.2005 the possession of the land in question in the present petition has been delivered to the respondent No.1. No document has been brought on record indicating the fact that after acquisition and passing of the award any notice was issued and served on the land owners. Nothing has been brought on record indicating the fact that in presence of the land owners and before the independent witnesses possession has been taken from them and thereafter possession was delivered to the Archaeological Survey of India. In absence of the document of taking over of the possession from the land holders plea of following the procedure is of no consequence and by the said document it cannot be presumed that the actual physical possession had been taken over from the land owners following the procedure prescribed and then delivered to the respondent No.1 - looking to the documents brought by the respondents it is apparent that actual physical possession of the land following the procedure has not been taken over by the respondents. Both the contingencies specified under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 either of delivery of possession excluding the period of stay or the compensation paid by depositing it in the account of the beneficiaries or in Court has not been satisfied bringing any material. In absence thereto in view of the legal position discussed by various pronouncements it is to be held that the contingencies specified under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 have not been satisfied by the respondents - the land acquisition proceedings insofar as it relates to the agricultural land pertaining to Khasra No.497/1 area ad measuring 5.696 hectare and the residential house situated at Village Lalguvan Tahsil Rajnagar District Chhatarpur would be deemed to be lapsed. The land acquisition proceedings so far as it relates to the land in question shall stand lapsed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether actual physical possession of the land in question has been taken by the respondents or the compensation has been paid in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013?
2. Whether the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Actual Physical Possession and Compensation Payment:
The petitioners, joint owners of agricultural land and residential house, argued that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They contended that the compensation had not been paid and actual physical possession had not been taken. The respondents claimed that compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and possession was taken, but the petitioners refused to accept the compensation and re-encroached the land. The court analyzed whether the procedures for taking possession and paying compensation were followed as per the old Act and the new Act.

2. Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings:
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 states that if an award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act and either physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Mishrimal Solanki, which clarified that "paid" means the compensation must be deposited in the court or the beneficiaries' account, not merely offered or tendered. The court found that the compensation was neither deposited in the court nor in the beneficiaries' account, and the procedure for taking possession was not properly followed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that since the award was passed more than five years before the commencement of the Act of 2013 and neither the compensation was paid nor actual physical possession was taken as per the legal procedures, the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the land acquisition proceedings were declared lapsed. The court also granted liberty to the State Government to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013.