STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. versus DEVANDER SAGAR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 13 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 07-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 13 S.C.R. 1057 
STATE OF HARYANA&ANR. 
v. 
DEVAN DER SAGAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Ne. 318 of2011 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,JJ.) 
A 
B 
. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 6, SA, 11 A and 17 -
s.4 notification dated 18.01.2001 -
Invoking urgency c 
provision u/s.17(1) and 17(4)-Declaration u/s. 6 issued the 
next ciay - The notification and the declaration challenged 
in the court by land-owners - Court passed interim order on 
07.02.2002 -
The State on 08.02.2002 passed award, 
oblivious to the interim orders and took possession of certain o 
parts of Schedule iand - The High Court by order dated 
12.1.2004 further quashed the declaration on the grounds 
that the State failed to adhere to mandatory requirement of 
payment of 80% compensation; and that it did not qualify as 
a case of urgency as the State failed to pass the award within 
E 
one year from the date of the declaration- However, the High 
Court permitted the land-owners to file objections u/s. SA 
within· 30 days and also permitted the State to issue fresh 
declaration u/s. 6, if it found substance in those objections -
Objections filed on 11.02.2004 were dismissed - Fresh F 
declaration u/s. 6 was issued on 30.12.2004 - The land-
owners again challenged the s.4 notifjcation dated 
18.01.2002 as well as declaration dated 30.12.2004-High 
Court quashed the acquisition proceedings holding that 
declaration dated 30.12.2004 was issued beyond the G 
statutory period from the date of s. 4 notification and that award 
was also not passed within two years, thus falling foul of s. 
11A- On appeal, held: The entire exercise of/and acquisition 
proceedings has to be completed within three years - There 
H 
1057 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 13 S.C.R. 
...-
A are lapses on the part of the State in the manner in which it 
conducted the acquisition - No compensation was paid at 
the time of invocation of urgency provision - Once the State 
invoked s. 17, it was necessary for it to tend the payment of 
80% of the compensation- Section 17(3A) and 17(38) cannot 
B be rendered nugatory- The Declaration dated 30.12.2004 
cannot be upheld and the same cannot be considered as 
continuation of initial Declaration - the order dated 12. 1. 2004 
was erroneous and prejudicial to the landowners and hence 
the State cannot be permitted to rely on that- No party should 
C suffer for the mistake of the Court - Order of High Court 
upheld. 
s. 17 - Invocation of- By State - Without paying 80% 
of the compensation - Held: The State cannot be permitted 
D to invoke one part of s. 17 while discarding another - If the 
manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under a statute, 
the act must be done in that manner or not at all. 
ss. 4 and 6 -
Land acquisition -
Payment of 
E compensation to land-owners- Possession of the land taken 
by the beneficiary -
Thereafter acquisition proceedings 
challenged - Held: As per s. 24 of 2013 Act, the requirements 
for an acquisition to attain finality are passing of award, 
payment of compensation and taking of possession - In the 
F present case, since the land-owners allowed the acquisition 
to become final, they cannot challenge it thereafter- In the 
facts of the case, challenge to acquisition proceedings was 
also belated - Hence, acquisition proceedings upheld -
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
G Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
s.24. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Expropriatory legislation -
Interpretation of - Held: Expropriatory legislation such as 
H Land Acquisition Act, must be construed strictly- Legislation. 
STATE OF HARYANA &ANR. v. DEVANDER SAGAR & ORS. 1059 
Decree - Challenge to- When - Held: A decree without A 
jurisdiction is a nullity - Its invalidity could be a subject at 
any stage in any proceedings, even at the stage of execution. 
Dismissing C.A.Nos. 318 of 2011 and 459-460 of 
2011 and allowing C.A. Nos. 461-462, the Court 
8 
HELD: 
C.A. Nos. 318 of2011and495-460 of2011: 
1. The entire exercise in the land acquisition 
P(Oceedings has to be completed within three years. C 
This time prescription is intended to ensure that the 
landowners whose lands have been expropriated on the 
State's continuing powers of eminent domain, receive 
the market price for their property in close proximity of 
_the time of acquisition. These persons would thus be in D 
a position to purchase alternate property, which 
indubitably would not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.