Guru Amarjit Singh vs The State of Punjab

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner has laid challenge to the notifications dated 19.06.1996 and 13.05.1997 issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the extent of acquisition of his land. The award is stated to have been announced on 12.05.1999.

This Court vide order dated 27.08.1997, granted the interim relief of stay to the petitioner in the same terms as was granted in CWP No. 10912 of 1997.

The above-mentioned interim stay order is still operating.

In this undisputed factual backdrop, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ''2013 Act'')?

The aforementioned question is no longer res-integra. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 07.05.2014 rendered in Civil Appeals No. 5478-5483 of 2014, Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others, has interpreted Section 24(2) of 2013 Act in the context of those cases where State could not take possession of the acquired land due to interim stay orders passed by court(s) and meanwhile, the 2013 Act has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. In the cited decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

Limitation

As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to cases where awards were passed u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1.1.2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the Act, to avoid any ambiguity. Since this legislation has been passed with the objective of benefiting the land-losers, this interpretation is consistent with that objective and also added as a matter of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation challenging an award cannot be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has elapsed or not. If the possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid due to the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, the pendente lite period will be included to determine the five year period and including such period if the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, then the said acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have elapsed and fresh proceedings, if so desired, will have to be initiated in accordance with the new Act.

The objects and reasons of the Act 2013 and particularly clause 18 thereof fortify the view taken by this court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Clause 18 thereof reads as under:

The benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken.

(Emphasis added)

However, the aforesaid appeals have to be decided in the light of above settled legal propositions. The admitted facts of the case remains that the Respondents-Tenure Holders had filed objections u/s 5A of the Act 1894 as admitted in the affidavit filed by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Land Acquisition), Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, filed in January 2014 before this court. The award no. 15/87-88 had been made on 5.6.1987 and possession has not been taken till date though compensation has been deposited with the Revenue Department, which cannot be termed as ''deemed payment'' as has been held in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (Supra).

The respondents have admittedly not taken possession of the acquired land in the instant cases, of course, due to stay order passed by this Court. The award was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014 i.e., the date when the 2013 Act came into force. The petitioner has not received any compensation also till date. The principle of inclusion of pendente lite period expounded in Shiv Raj and others'' case (supra) thus is fully applicable in the instant case(s).

The concept of pendente lite having been explained by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the acquisition of petitioner''s land is declared to have lapsed. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed; the impugned notifications dated 19.06.1996 and 13.05.1997 as well as the award dated 12.05.1999 qua the petitioner are set aside. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty re-acquire the subject property in accordance with law and provisions of 2013 Act.

Having held that, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the land was acquired for the regulated development. As a consequence of the lapse of acquisition, if the petitioner succeeds in changing the nature of land or if he creates third party rights, it is likely to be detrimental to the ''public interest'' as several basic amenities like roads, sewerage or park etc. would also be adversely affected. We, thus, restrain the petitioner from alienating and/or changing the nature of his released land for a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. No construction shall be raised by the petitioner on his site and the District Administration shall ensure that nature of the land is not changed by anyone.

The aforesaid period of one year has been fixed so as to enable the State authorities to consider and re-acquire the subject land in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act, if need be. If no fresh acquisition takes place during the period of one year, the petitioner shall be at liberty to utilize his land in the manner as may be permissible under the local laws.