AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The issue involved in these petitions is identical, therefore, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, fact are taken from W.P.No.11973/2014.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :
1.To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Notification dated 11.01.2008 which has been issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P-1).
2.To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands of Khasra no. 75, 84/1, 85/1, 86, 89/1, 90/1, 88/1area 0.399 Hect village -Anuppur, District -Anuppur, belonging to the petitioner, as lapsed in view of the "Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013).
3.Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court thinks proper may kindly be granted.
It is the case of the petitioners that the lands of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of District Hospital and an award was passed on 06.12.2008 in favour of the affected persons and compensation has been determined.
It is submitted that vide order dated 20.05.2008 Annexure P/4, it was decided by the respondent/authority that the petitioners will be provided other suitable land in lieu of their lands. However, vide notice dated 20.10.2009, petitioners were directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and receive the compensation for the acquired land.
It is submitted that after coming into effect of New Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, if the physical possession of the lands are not taken or the compensation is not paid, in respect of the proceedings initiated under the Old Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act.
It is submitted that in such situation when the land has not been acquired and the proposed District Hospital has been constructed somewhere else, the petitioners cannot be compelled to take compensation in lieu of their land and the respondent/authority is liable to give back the land of the petitioners.
Per contra, it has been submitted by counsel for the State that the respondent/authority has already passed the award dated 06.12.2008 in favour of the affected persons and compensation has been decided, however, the same has not been taken by the petitioners till date. It is submitted that the new Act is not applicable with retrospective effect. It is also submitted that the order dated 25.02.2008, relied upon by the petitioner, has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent No.3 who is not competent for the recommendation for exchange of land. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the State Government for construction of District Hospital in Anuppur and an award was passed by the competent authority on 06.12.2008 determining compensation in favour of the petitioners.
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 provides that :
"16.Power to take possession - When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances."
As regards the contention that the land should be returned to the petitioners as the hospital has been constructed elsewhere, Section 16 of the Act of 1984 provides that once land is acquired by the Government and the acquisition proceedings have attained finality, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances and then there is no question of return of land even if there is reallocation of the project.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 as under :
"366.2.In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6.The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7.The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8.The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition."
The award, in the present case, was passed on 16.12.2008, i.e. prior to the commencement of the New Act, therefore, the land got vested in the State Government in view of Section 16 of the Old Act. Mere non-acceptance of compensation does not amount to non-payment within the meaning of Section 24(2). Once the compensation has been determined and notice dated 20.10.2009 was issued to receive the same, then authority of the State Government has no role to play and the proceedings cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners may apply for receiving the compensation already determined in lieu of their lands as per notice, before appropriate forum.