Vinod Gupta and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The land in dispute was acquired vide notification dated 8.3.1989 and incomplete award was pronounced on 5.3.1992 just on the eve of the expiry of the limitation period provided by the statute. Neither any compensation has been paid for possession nor possession has been taken till today. On the face of it, the award appears to be a colourable exercise of jurisdiction with a motive to overreach the statutory provisions relating to limitation provided by the statute of Land Acquisition for pronouncement of the award within the statutory period. The object of the statutory provisions is expeditious completion of acquisition proceedings so that owners should not be made to suffer for indefinite period because of uncertainty and indecisiveness on the part of the State to acquire the property. Citizens cannot be made to suffer by pegging down the prices of their lands without actual acquisition i.e. payment of compensation and taking over the possession. Be that as it may be, otherwise too the facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this court in Sharon Pal Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1991 1 P.L.R. 61 wherein it was observed as Under:-

"the land, buildings standing thereon and standing crops and trees on the land constitute one unit, and the value of the entire unit has to be determined with all its advantages and potentialities. Necessary consequence will be that only one award has to be rendered for the unit." It was further observed that :- "the award rendered by the Land Acquisition collector was not the one envisaged u/s 11 of the Act. The same envisages the award for the unit viz, the land, buildings and super structures and standing crops and tress thereon. The acquisition proceedings would lapse in so far as the award relates to that portion of the acquired land on which the super-structures and tress were standing on the date the award had been a made."

In view of the above observations made by the Division Bench of this court with which we find nor reasons to differe the award in the present case being incomplete, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have elapsed by efflux of time. Resultantly the acquisition proceedings are quashed. No order as to costs.