Babu Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J

This is the second round of litigation at the instance of these very Petitioners seeking release of the lands acquired in village Piwara Tehsil and District Rewari, pursuant to the notice dated 1st July, 2011 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA'), the notification dated 26th June, 2012 issued under Section 6 of the 'LAA' and the Award No. 16 dated 8th November, 2014 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector ('LAC'). In an earlier writ petition [CWP-8124-2015 (O&M)] filed by these very Petitioners along with one Ajay Kumar, Petitioner No. 1 therein, an order dated 15th July, 2016 was passed by a Division Bench of this Court, rejecting the claim of Ajay Kumar, but directing that as regards the remaining 7 Petitioners i.e. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8, there shall be liberty to them to "represent the Land Acquisition Collector along with particulars and proof of constructed houses/structures, which have not been allegedly released so far".

Pursuant to the said order dated 15th July, 2016, a speaking order dated 29th January, 2020 has been passed by the Chairperson-cum-Zonal Administrator of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran ('HSVP') /Respondent No. 5, listing out the reasons for releasing some part of the land and not the remaining in respect of each of the Petitioners.

This Court heard the submissions of Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General Haryana appearing for the Respondents.

At the outset, it is required to be noticed that Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on 16th March, 2020 delivered a judgment in the case Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2020 SC 1496, answering a large number of questions, which were referred to it for consideration. Relevant to the case on hand are the answers provided in para 363 (3) which reads as under:-

"3. 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 Act of 2013 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."

In the present case, as is evident from the order passed by the Respondent No. 5 on 29th January, 2020, there is a rapat roznamcha in repsect of the lands in question, showing that possession indeed was taken over by the Respondent no. 5. The decision in Manohar Lal (supra) clarifies that even constructive possession taken by drawing up of possession proceedings by a rapat roznamcha would be sufficient and in such event, one of the two negative conditions essential for the applicability of proviso to Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act'), would not stand fulfilled.

As regards the issue of payment of compensation, the categorical averment in para 13 of this writ petition reads thus:

"....it would be pertinent to state here that as far as the said compensation is concerned, none of the Petitioners have accepted the compensation."

The above averment is a clear admission that it is the Petitioners, who failed to accept the compensation. There is no averment about any failure to pay the compensation, as understood under the 2013 Act. In this regard the following observations of the Constitution Bench in Manohar Lal (supra) in sub-paras 4 and 5 of para 363 are relevant and read as under:-

"4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 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 Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, 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).Land owners 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 Act of 2013."

In that view of the matter, it is plain that the Petitioners do not satisfy the negative conditions for release of the land in terms of the 2013 Act, as explained by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (supra).

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29th January, 2020 passed by Respondent No. S does not call for any interference.

The writ petition is dismissed.