Santra Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J

The challenge in this petition is to the land acquisition proceedings culminating in the Award dated 27th June, 2008 following notification dated 30th

June, 2005 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LAA’) and notification dated 5th July, 2006 issued under Section 6 of LAA for

the development of Sector-39, Rai. The acquisition was, inter-alia, of the land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas falling in khasra No.14//3 of village Rasoi,

Tehsil and District Sonepat.

The present petition was on 28th November, 2019, adjourned sine die, awaiting the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India

interpreting Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act No.30 of 2013

(‘2013 Act’). On 6th March, 2020, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a batch of Special Leave Petitions

(SLPs) and appeals, the lead case of which was S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9036-38 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others etc.). The

conclusions reached by the Constitution Bench in response to the various questions that arose for consideration have been set out in para 363 of the

said judgment.

At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the present petitioners were not the original owners of the land in question. It is admitted that the land in

question was purchased by the present Petitioners through a sale deed dated 10th August 2005, which was subsequent to the notification under

Section 4 of LAA. It has been clarified, inter-alia, in para 337 of the judgment in Manoharlal (supra) that “the beneficiaries, i.e., landowners

contemplated under the proviso to Section 24 (2), are the ones who were so recorded as beneficiaries as on the state of issuance of notification under

Section 4 of the Act of 1894.†There cannot, therefore, be obviously a questioning of the land acquisition proceedings at the instance of present

Petitioners. It has further been clarified that even a power of attorney holder of the original landowner cannot question the land acquisition

proceedings. In Manoharlal (supra), this aspect was specifically adverted to in para 337 and it was held as under:

“The provision is not meant to be invoked on the basis of void transactions, and by the persons who have purchased on the basis of power of

attorney or otherwise, they cannot claim the benefit under Section 24 as is apparent from proviso to Section 24 (2) and the decision in Shiv Kumar and

Ors v. Union of India and Ors. 2019 (13) SCALE 698â€​

Learned counsel for the Petitioners did not dispute that the grounds on which the acquisition proceedings have been challenged viz., that the actual

physical possession continued to remain with the Petitioners and that the compensation was not yet paid, is no longer available to the Petitioners to

urge after the decision in Manoharlal (supra). Indeed, in the present case, it is seen that rapat No.849 was prepared on 27th June, 2008 itself in

respect of the taking over of the possession by the State. Further, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Haryana,

further submits that mutation of the land in favour of HSIIDC has also been carried out in the land records.

As regards compensation, he states that since the compensation amount has not been lifted by the landowners, it has been deposited in the Court of

learned Additional District Judge on 6th April, 2015. Further 85.5% of the total compensation amount for the acquisition in question stands disbursed.

Consequently, none of the grounds that require to be satisfied in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act for declaring the deemed lapsing of land

acquisition proceedings stand fulfilled in the present case.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to urge that in the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27th June, 2008, the land involved in

the present writ petition has not been included. This contention cannot be heard to be urged by the present Petitioners, who were not the recorded

landowners at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LAA.

For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such.