9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act'') on 27.11.2002 for acquisition of the Appellant's industrial land for public purpose, namely, for the construction and development of Industrial Estate and laying of sewerage and storm water drainage in Sector 3, District Karnal, Haryana. The Appellant filed objections Under Section 5A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector submitted his report to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department, recommending that the area of 37 Bhigas 13 Biswas be not acquired which included the area of land belonging to the Appellant. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation in its report also admitted the fact that the industries are situated on the land sought to be acquired for industrial purpose and did not recommend that the land be acquired. The above two reports were not considered and the State Government issued declaration notification Under Section 6 of the Act on 14.11.2003. An Award Under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 30.05.2005. The Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the correctness of the acquisition proceedings. The Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with the provisions of this Act.... It is contended by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013. The above said provision of the Act has been interpreted by the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) wherein the law was laid down holding that the land acquisition proceedings initiated are deemed to have lapsed where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of Resettlement Act, 2013 and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid to the land owners. 6. The award was made 5 years prior to the date of commencement of the Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings of the land of the Appellants have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013, which has been interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which reads thus: 20... it is clear 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically provide that the period or periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing the relevant period. In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in view of law on the subject elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533. Further in the case of Shiv Raj and Ors. (supra), this Court has held thus: 19. In order to clarify the statutory provisions of the Act 2013 with respect to such lapsing, the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Division, came up with a circular dated 14.3.2014 wherein on the basis of the legal opinion of the Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified as under: "3. Interpretation of five years' period "With regard to this issue viz. interpretati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2013 Act and particularly Clause 18 thereof fortify the view taken by this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Clause 18 thereof reads as under: 18. The benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken. 20. However, the aforesaid appeals have to be decided in the light of above settled legal propositions. The admitted facts of the case remains that the Respondents-Tenure Holders had filed objections Under Section 5A of the Act 1894 as admitted in the affidavit filed by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Land Acquisition), Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, filed in January 2014 before this Court. The award No. 15/87-88 had been made on 5.6.1987 and possession has not been taken till date though compensation has been deposited with the Revenue Department, which cannot be termed as 'deemed payment' as has been held in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. 7. The Legislature brought about amendment to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 through an Amendment Act 68 of 1984, to add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2013 are satisfied for allowing the plea of the Appellants that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013. The said legal principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment after following the three Judge Bench decision of this Court referred to supra with regard to interpretation made Under Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013 with all fours would be applicable to the fact situation in respect of the land covered in these appeals and for granting relief as prayed. 8. The learned senior Counsel further contended that the recommendations made in the reports of the Land Acquisition Collector were neither accepted by the Respondents nor assigned reasons for not accepting the same. Therefore, the issuance of notification Under Section 6 of the Act declaring the land involved in these appeals is bad in law. It is contended that the case of the Appellant is squarely covered by the above said judgments. Further, reliance is placed in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) wherein this Court has held as under: 9. We are inclined to observe that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustry, had also issued a license to the seller for this industry, and the same is operative till date. An old factory is established in Khasra No. 3966/2, 3971/2, with a total area of 1 bigha, 11 biswa. Small-scale industry licenses established in Khasra Nos. 4000, 4001/2, 4001/1/1, 4001/1/2, 4001/1/3, 4002/1, 4002/2 where old factories along with lantered houses have been constructed. When the land was acquired in 1986 in Sector 3, the abovementioned khasra Nos. were excluded from the acquisition process. Hence the above mentioned land may be released, measuring total of 37 bighas and 13 biswas. The above Nos. are leftover for acquirement. -sd- Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal" 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terested, or known to be interested, in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. That the objection is to be in writing, is indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the objection is to focus his individual cause as well as public cause.... In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions of this Court with regard to Section 5A of the Act, the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the proposed acquisition of the land of the Appellants, the State Government has to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Collector while issuing declaration of the acquisition of the land Under Section 6 of the Act. 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 relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
