Lajjaram Kushwah vs Chief Executive Officer

Rohit Arya, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4/7/2014 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 42/2013. By the aforesaid order, petitioners'' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

Relevant facts, as pleaded by the applicants, are to the effect that proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are pending consideration before the court below. It is alleged that possession has not been taken. The interim injunction sought was rejected on 17/8/2012, however, appeal arising therefrom is pending consideration before the High Court with interim order of maintaining status quo between the parties. During pendency of the proceedings, new Act, namely, ''The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013)'' has come into force w.e.f. 1st January, 2014. It is, therefore, submitted that by force of provisions of the new Act, the pending case No. 2/A-82/08-09 has rendered infructuous. With the aforesaid submissions, applicants have sought to bring an amendment in the grounds of their objection as ground No. 1-A to the effect that in view of the new Act having come into force, as possession of the acquired land has not been taken and compensation has not been received by the applicants, therefore, the proceedings are lapsed in view of Section 24 of the new Act.

The aforesaid amendment is replied by the respondent inter alia contending that award has been passed on 15/7/2010 and possession is with the respondent, therefore, the proceedings shall not lapse u/s 24 of the new Act, as alleged.

The trial court while considering the relevant provision as contained in sub-section (2) of the new Act inasmuch as the award is passed within five years from the date of coming into force of new Act and, therefore, found provision of Section 24(2) of the new Act to be not applicable.

Learned counsel for the applicants has repeated the submissions as advanced before the trial court and submitted that the proceedings shall stand lapsed by force of provisions as contained u/s 24(2) of the new Act.

To appreciate the submissions, it is considered apposite to quote Section 24(2) of the new Act, which reads as under:-

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) XXXXX

(a) XXXXX

(b) XXXXX

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where 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 beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition u/s 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The aforesaid provision starts with non obstante clause carving out an exception to the general rule as provided in sub-section (1) relating to lapse of proceedings by virtue of coming into force of new Act. Sub-section (2) in its fold contains three ingredients required to be fulfilled for rendering the pending proceedings lapsed viz. (i) that, in land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, award u/s 11 thereof is passed five years'' or more prior to commencement of this Act, (ii) the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or (iii) compensation has not been paid.

In the instant case, admittedly the award has been passed on 15/7/2010. As such, the award is passed within five years preceding the date of commencement of new Act, hence, the very first condition is not satisfied in the instant case and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the proceedings before the court below shall not lapse by force of provisions of Section 24(2) of the new Act. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2014 dated 24/1/2014 referred to by the counsel for applicants is distinguishable on facts as in that case the award passed on 31/1/2008 was beyond five years preceding the date of commencement of the new Act and, therefore, the same is not applicable. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.