THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus SUSHILA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 13-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
573
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
v.
SUSHILA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 2022)
JANUARY 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the respondent no.1-original writ petitioners, being subsequent
purchasers seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings
pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2)
since neither physical possession of the land was taken nor they
were paid compensation – Allowed by the High Court –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken
over by the acquiring body and handed over to the beneficiary,
any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be
encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the
benefit of the provisions of s. 24(2) – It would be giving a premium
to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention
of the legislature – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to
challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition – Thus, the
writ petition by the respondents being subsequent purchasers ought
not to have been entertained by the High Court – Order passed by
the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority
Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022 - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9205
of 2022.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 573
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014.
B. K. Satiza, AAG, Ms. S. Harini, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi
Dhankhar, Advs. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the State of Haryana has
preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High
Court it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein -
original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land in
question has not been paid to them and even the possession of the lands
in question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed
to have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor the
compensation for the acquired land has been paid.
2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by the
Land Acquisition Officer. It was  specifically  disputed that the possession
of the acquired land was not taken over. It was also the specific case on
behalf of the  appellants herein that as such the original writ petitioners
being the subsequent purchasers after the notification under Section 4
dated 26.08.2003 there was no question of any compensation to be paid
to them. It was submitted that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers
had no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings more particularly
to pray for lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant part of the
written statement read as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
“1.   That  the  petitioners  have  no  locus  standi  to file the
present petition before this Hon’ble court because the petitioners
were not owners of the acquired land at the time of the notification
under section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6 dated
10.08.2004. The gram Panchayat of village Nathupur  was  owner
of  the  land  bearing  khasra no. 155 (1-7-0), 156/1(0-3-8), 156/
3(1-18-17).   The petitioners were tenants in the  land  in  dispute
as per the revenue record. The petitioners become owners  of
the  land  in  dispute  vide  order  dated 24.05.2006 passed by the
Hon’ble High court in Regular Second Appeal no. 157
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.