State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Devander Sagar & Ors.
|
Head Note
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (2)
Land Acquisition Proceedings - Lapse of - Three requirements for an acquisition to attain finality are the passing of an award, payment of compensation and taking of possession, all of which are met here - Contesting Respondents in these Appeals had not been parties before the Division Bench in its Judgment dated 12.3.2024 - As that Judgment did not explicitly state that it would apply to all the landowners affected by the impugned acquisition process, it was limited in scope to the parties before it - Contesting Respondents in these Appeals only filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition after the Judgment dated 12.3.2024 was passed - Till the date of the 12.3.2024 Judgment, these Respondents had acquiesced to the acquisition and had allowed it to become final, and therefore they could not seek to challenge it by placing reliance on a Judgment that did not enure to their benefit.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 , Section 6
Land Acquisition - Declaration - Limitation - Language in Section 6(1) is clear and unambiguous, and the time period cannot be stretched as this would not be in keeping with the legislative intent - Contention of the Appellant State that the Declaration dated 30.12.2023 is a continuation of the initial Declaration is held to be clearly erroneous, as such a finding would be in the face of the strict interpretation of time prescribed by Padma Sundara Rao and the unambiguous language of Section 6 - Appellant State cannot place reliance on an erroneous Order which caused grave prejudice to the rights of the Respondents -No party should suffer for the mistake of the Court - Since compensation is calculated based on the value of the land on the date of the Section 4 Notification, the Order of the Division Bench dated 12.1.2024 resulted in the landowners getting compensation at 2001 rates even though the Award was finally passed in 2006 and the compensation is yet to be paid to the Respondents - Had the Division Bench Order struck down only the Declaration, which in turn would have resulted in the entire acquisition lapsing, the Appellant State would have had to reinitiate acquisition proceedings, resulting in the Respondents receiving compensation at the market rates current at the time of the fresh Notification - Declaration dated 30.12.2023 cannot be upheld merely by virtue of the previous Division Bench's erroneous and prejudicial Order- Decision of the High Court in the impugned Judgment upheld.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 (3) , Section 5-A , Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300 A
Land Acquisition - Urgency Clause - Compensation - Payment of - Held that if the Union or the State Government is desirous of depriving any person of his property it can only do so by authority of law - That authority, as is facially evident, inter alia, is the necessity to tend the payment of 80 per cent of the compensation estimated by the Collector in the event that Section 17 is to be pressed into service, with the objective of denying the landowners remonstration rights by filing Objections in consonance with Section 5A of the L.A. Act - Expropriatory legislation, such as the L.A. Act, must compulsorily be construed strictly - Appellant State cannot be permitted to invoke one part of Section 17 while discarding another - Sections 17(3A) and 17(3B), which were inserted by the Act 68 of 1964 with effect from 24.9.1994, cannot be rendered nugatory.
Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Declaration - Limitation - No fresh declaration