Visthapit Kisan Sangh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf a Sangh namely Visthapit Kisan Sangh, Devipur, Deoghar, through

its Secretary for raising the issue that they have not properly been compensated and amount of compensation as also the possession of land has not

been taken and the award has been passed of more than five years, therefore, the instant case falls under the purview of provision of Section 24(2) of

the Right Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013, hereinafter referred as the Act, 2013 and

therefore, the appropriate direction has been sought for to initiate a fresh proceeding under the new Act, 2013 in view of the fact that three ingredients

as referred above is mated out, the proceeding initiated under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be vitiated and the fresh proceeding will

be initiated under the provision of new Act, 2013.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Jharkhand wherein the factual aspect as has been pleaded in the writ petition has seriously been

disputed showing therein that it is the case which does not fall under the category of applicability of the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013

since it is admitted case of the petitioner that the amount of compensation has been paid but its quantity is meager, therefore, the amount of

compensation has been received although it is meager as per the petitioner, hence the case will not fall under the provision of new Act, 2013.

Further it has been submitted that even the possession has been taken as has been admitted by the petitioner since the authorities have started

constructing the boundary wall for construction of building to be used for the purpose of hospital “All India Medical Sciencesâ€​ (AIMS) at Devipur,

Deoghar and therefore, on this ground also this case is not coming under the fold of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013.

Objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition since the writ petition has been filed on behalf of Sangh without having any

resolution showing the consensus to approach the court of law by the respective members and further the “Sanghâ€​ is not registered.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions advanced on their behalf this Court needs to deal with

the issue as to whether the instant case is fit to be considered under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 which reads as under:-

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.â€"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained

in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),--

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of

compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if

the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of

1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical

possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the

appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the

beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to

compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.â€​

It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the specific provision has been made under Section 24 more particularly sub-section (2) that if any

proceeding has been initiated under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award has been passed which is of more than the period of

five years from the date of enactment of new Act, 2013, if the possession of the land have been taken by the acquisition authority and the amount of

compensation has not been paid then the proceeding initiated under the old Act of the year 1894 will vitiate and a fresh proceeding under the Act,

2013 will be initiated.

This Court has examined the aforesaid legal position and the factual aspect involved in this case wherefrom it is evident particularly from the pleading

made in the writ petition wherein at Paragraph-8 the averment has been made that the lands were acquired but the amount of compensation was paid

but at meager rate, it does stipulate that the amount of compensation has been paid although according to the petitioner is not as per the market value.

It further appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the land is in possession of the State-authority which is to be used for AIMS in the

district of Deoghar, therefore, the possession of the State is also not in dispute.

So far as the date of award is concerned, admittedly, the award is of more than the period of five years from the date of enactment of the new Act

but for applicability of the provision of Section 24(2) of the new Act, 2013 all three conditions i.e. the award is to be passed for a period more than the

period of five years, amount of compensation has not been paid and the possession of the said land has not been taken by the authority, then only the

applicability of the provision of Section 24(2) would be there, but herein, it is admitted case of the petitioner, the amount of compensation has been paid

but less in quantum and possession has also been taken by the State-authority, therefore, the requirement as stipulated under Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013 is not mated out, therefore, it is not a case to be considered for applying the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Accordingly the relief sought for by the petitioner is not fit to be extended in favour of the petitioner.

Further the writ petition is also be held to be not maintainable since the same has been filed by the Sangh without any resolution on behalf of the

respective members of the Sangh and further no description of the members or any other details has been stipulated in the writ petition.

In view of the reasons assigned hereinabove the writ petition lacks merits, accordingly, it is dismissed.