9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, 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. - V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ. For the Appellant : P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., Nitin Thukral, Ritika Sethi, Gaurav Sharma, Shashaank Bharsal, Parekh and Co. and S.K. Sabharwal, Advs. For the Respondent : Narender Hooda, Sr. AAG, Manjit Singh, AAG, B. Darmal, Nupur Choudhary, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ravindra Bana and Pradeep Dahiya, Advs. for S.K. Sabharwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 183 wherein this Court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013 and held that not taking possession of the acquired lands of the Appellants, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the same are lapsed. Para No. 11 in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 203 in support of the legal submission that not accepting the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector to delete the lands of the Appellants from acquisition, the State Government issuing declaration Under Section 6 of the Act without assigning reasons has vitiated the acquisition proceedings. 4. We have heard Mr. Pravin Parekh, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant. He has relied upon the cases of this Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 583, Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2014 (10) SCALE 388 and Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 564 in support of his legal submissions. 5. During the pendency of these appeals, the Parliament enacted 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' (for short Resettlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 114, however, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction Under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention of the Corporation. Further, reliance was placed in the cases of Bimla Devi and Ors. (supra) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) wherein the law laid down in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was reiterated. In Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Associat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e years. In my view, it should be further clarified that in none of the cases the period of five years would have elapsed pursuant to an award made Under Section 11 from the date of commencement of the Act and that the benefit of Section 24(2) will be available to those cases which are pending and where during pendency, the situation has remained unchanged with physical possession not being handed over or compensation not having been accepted and the period equals to or exceeds five years. 4. Limitation As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to cases where awards were passed Under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1-1-2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the Act, to avoid any ambiguity. Since this legislation has been passed with the objective of benefiting the land-losers, this interpretation is consistent with that objective and also added as a matter of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation challenging an award cannot be excluded for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the court is not required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation, as held by this Court in the case of C.I.T., Mysore v. The Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. AIR 1959 SC 713 as under: 10. Lord Macmillan in Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company v. Bezwada Municipality laid down the sphere of a proviso as follows: The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise-fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is confined to that case. Where, as in the present case, the language of the main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from it by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. The territory of a proviso therefore is to carve out an exception to the main enactment and exclude something which otherwise would have been within the section. It has to operate in the same field and if the language of the main enactment is clear it cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the main enactment or to exclude by implication what the enactment clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a report containing recommendations of the Collector submitted Under Section 5-A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. (Emphasis laid by this Court) 16. Hence, the declaration made by the Government for acquisition of land of the Appellant Under Section 6 of the Act does not provide any reason for arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the basic protection to which the landowners are entitled to Under the Act through Section 5-A is violated. Consequently, the process of acquisition of the land of the Appellant is tainted with mala fides and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.... 9. The Land Acquisition Collector in the present case has recommended to the State Government that the land covered in these civil appeals need not be acquired. On our direction, Mr. Manjit Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), wherein this Court referred to the legal principle laid down in the case of Women's Education Trust and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 99, and has held as under: 35. What is most surprising is that the High Court did not even deal with the issue relating to application of mind by the Government to the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector Under Section 5-A(2) along with his recommendations. The documents produced before the High Court and this Court do not show that the State Government had objectively applied mind to the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector and felt satisfied that the land in question deserves to be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued Under Section 4(1). The record also does not contain any indication as to why the State Government did not consider it proper to accept the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned acquisition is ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act. 11. Further, in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
