S.D. Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose CWP No. 7027 of 2005; CWP No. 7028 of 2005; CWP No. 7029 of 2005; CWP No. 7030 of 2005; CWP No. 19025 of 2005 and CWP No. 12280 of 2006 as all the petitions have laid challenge to the same set of notifications dated 12.08.2003 and 10.08.2004 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by the award dated 07.12.2005.

In CWP No. 7027 of 2005, dispossession and demolition of the petitioner''s building/house was stayed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2005 and in CWP No. 12280 of 2006 also vide order dated 08.08.2006, interim relief was granted in the same terms.

In CWP Nos. 7028 and 7029 of 2005 also, dispossession of the petitioners was stayed on 23.05.2005 with a further direction that petitioners shall not make any alteration or addition in the property in question.

In CWP No. 7030 of 2005 dispossession of the petitioners from the subject land was stayed vide order dated 23.05.2005.

In CWP No. 19025 of 2005, an undertaking was given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana on 20.09.2007 that possession of the land shall not be given to the colonizers.

The above-mentioned interim stay orders are operating till date.

In this undisputed factual backdrop, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are 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 orders passed by this Court. The award was passed more than five years before 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. The petitioners have 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.

Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned notifications dated 12.08.2003 and 10.08.2004 and the award dated 07.12.2005 qua the petitioners are set aside. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty re-acquire the subject property in accordance with law and provisions of 2013 Act.