9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.A. No.799/2006) and I.A. No.6272/2013 dated 1/11/2013 in W.A. No.250/2008(applications u/O VII Rule 7 of CPC); I.A. No.64/2015 dated 6/01/2015 in W.A. No.799/2005(application for taking document on record) and I.A. No.3772/2015 filed in July, 2015(application u/w 151 of CPC) in W.A. No.250/2008, I.A. No.22772014, application for disposal of the appeal filed in W.A. No.772/2006, and I.A. Nos.1888/2013 filed in W.A. No.323/2008 and 1889/2013 filed in W.A. No.250/08 for taking additional documents on record, are pending for consideration. 2. The decision rendered in W.A. No.514/2006 shall also govern the disposal of W.A. No.799/2006, W.A. No.772/2006, W.A. No.250/2008 and W.A. No.323/2008 respectively. In all these aforesaid writ appeals, the challenge is made to one land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The present appellants have challenged the Notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In one of the writ appeal, the challenge was also to a Scheme framed under the Madhya Pradesh Gram Tatha Nagar Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973(hereinafter 'the Old Act, 1973') for which the land in question is acquired under the Notification da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and appeal be allowed and disposed of in terms thereof. 11. Shri B.L. Pavecha and Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsels with Shri K.L. Hardia, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that various grounds have been raised by them to challenge the acquisition proceedings in question and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the provisions are illegal and cannot be sustained. During the pendency of the matter, the aforementioned I.As were filed pointing out that after coming into force of New Act w.e.f. 1.01.2014 and in view of Section 24 of the said Act and, particularly, the provisions of Section 24 (2), now after the award was passed in the Year 1992 and 2004, till date, neither any compensation has been paid to the landowners or beneficiaries nor has been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. The acquisition proceedings have lapsed and land should be restored back to the appellants. Accordingly, it is contended that in accordance with the New Act, the appeal should be allowed and the land be restored back to the appellants. It is submitted that the proceedings for acquisition were started in the Year 1989 and declaration under Section 6 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the main part of Section 24 (2) of the New Act. He submitted that as per proviso to Section 24(2), the main part of Section 24(2) is not applicable where lands have been acquired for a scheme. He submitted that several parcels of lands belonging to several land holders, possessions were taken and compensation were paid and for some parcel, possessions were not taken and, therefore, the case of the present appellants cannot be governed by the provisions of Section 24(1) (b) of the New Act and as per the aforesaid provisions, they are entitled for compensation on enhanced rate under the New Act and prayed for dismissal of the application. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we have considered the rival contention advanced by them. 15. Section 24 of the New Act reads as under:- "24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Section 4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act. 14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation. 17. As per reply of the Indore Development Authority, it is an admitted fact that the award for the acquired lands, was passed on 27.11.1992 in W.A.Nos.799/06, 514/06 and 772/06 and in W.A. No.250/08 and W.A. No.323/08 the award for acquired lands was passed on 16/04/2004. Notices were issued to the landowners to receive the compensation and since they did not receive the compensation amount, the amount was deposited in the Government Treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the amount of compensation in the Government Treasury is equivalent to the amount of compensation paid to the landowners/ persons interested ? We do not think so. In a comparatively recent decision, the Principal Seat of M.P. High Court in the case of Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2011) 11 SCC 506, relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. Of India Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 71, has held that the deposit of the amount of the compensation in the state's revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the state to pay interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited in court. 18. As per Section 24(2), in case, where the land proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat Kumar vs. State of Haryana[(2014) 6 SCC 586]; M/s Radiance Fincap (Civil Appeal No.4283/2011), Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India(AIR 2015 SC 1462); Karnail Kaur vs. State of Punjab(2015 AIR SCW 1980; Ramkishan v. State of Haryana (AIR 2015 SC 440) and Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF vs. Union of India(AIR 2015 SC 614). 22. The arguments on behalf of IDA that the subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all respects under the Old Act and that they are not affected at all in view of Section 24(1) and Section 114(2) of the New Act, has no merit at all because the case of Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) has been subsequently considered in the case of Shivraj and others (supra) and after taking note of the said judgment certain other judgments in the case of Bharat Kumar(supra) & Bimladevi & Ors.(supra) have taken note of and in Para 26 and 27 of case of Purushottam Lal vs. the State of M.P. decided on 15/10/2015, the matter has been crystallized in the following manner:- 26. The objects and Reasons of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings lapsed. The two eventualities are that possession is not taken over or compensation in accordance to law is not given to the beneficiaries. 24. In this case, even though the reply filed by the Indore Development Authority indicates that neither possession is taken over by them nor compensation has been paid to the beneficiaries, in accordance with the requirement of Section 31 of the Old Act. As held by the Apex Court, mere deposit of the amount in the Government Treasury or with the Revenue Department is not sufficient, it has to be paid to the beneficiaries or deposit in the Court where reference under Section 18 is normally filed. That being so, we are satisfied that documents overwhelming available on record to demonstrate that inspite of award having been more than five years prior to coming into force of the New Act, the award of compensation has not been paid to the beneficiaries as required under law nor possession of the land in question has been taken over from the owners and, therefore, in the light of legal principles laid down by the Apex Court as referred to herein above, entire proceedings lapsed. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is not necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
