2014 (11) TMI 1290 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquisition of lands of the Appellants - Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The State Government has neither accepted the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector nor assigned any reasons before issuing declaration notification Under Section 6 of the Act. The same is sought to be justified by the learned Addl. Advocate General contending that it is the prerogative of the Government to either accept or reject the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to the proposed land to be acquired by issuing declaration notification Under Section 6 of the Act. This contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is wholly untenable. If the Government comes to the conclusion contrary to the report of the Land Acquisition Collector then the Government shall assign valid and cogent reasons for not accepting the same. Therefore, the declaration notification by the State Government issued without accepting the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector and without assigning reasons for not accepting the same is bad in law. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in relation to the land covered in these appeals are liable to be quashed on this ground also. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2007 in so far as the present appeals are concerned, is set aside and the impugned acquisition-notification including the award is quashed holding that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed by not taking the physical possession of the acquired land of the Appellants by the State Government or any other authorized authority and also for not following the mandatory procedure as required Under Section 5A of the Act. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Consideration of recommendations by the Land Acquisition Collector and procedural compliance under Section 5A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Land Acquisition Proceedings:

The appeals challenge the High Court's decision upholding the acquisition of the Appellant's land for industrial purposes. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a declaration under Section 6, despite recommendations against acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, holding that the acquisition was for an important public purpose and could not be invalidated on the grounds presented.

2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013:

The Appellant argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013, as the award was made more than five years before the Act's commencement, and neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The Supreme Court, referencing its decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, reiterated that proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under these circumstances, rendering the acquisition invalid. The Court emphasized that compensation deposited in the government treasury does not equate to payment to the landowners.

3. Consideration of Recommendations by the Land Acquisition Collector:

The Appellant contended that the State Government failed to consider the Land Acquisition Collector's recommendations, which advised against acquiring the land. The Supreme Court highlighted that the failure to consider these recommendations or provide reasons for their rejection vitiated the proceedings. The Court cited precedents, including Vinod Kumar, emphasizing that the State must apply its mind to the Collector's report and provide cogent reasons if it chooses to deviate from the recommendations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings were invalid on two grounds: the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013, and the failure to adhere to procedural requirements under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court quashed the acquisition notification and the award, allowing the appeals without costs. The judgment underscores the necessity for the State to comply with procedural mandates and consider substantive recommendations during land acquisition processes.