VIJAY LATKA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 05-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 764 
VIJAY LATKA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4864 of2016) 
B 
'MAYOS, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894 - ss. 4, 6 and II - Land acquisition 
proceedings - Challenged in writ petition - Plea taken that since 
C 
compensation was not paid, therefore in view of s. 24(2) of 2013 
Act land acquisition proceedings lapsed - Petition dismissed by High 
Court - On appeal, held: Since the landlords have not been paid 
compensation in terms of the award passed, land acquisition 
proceedings are set aside as having been lapsed - Right to Fair 
compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation 
D and Reselflement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2). 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Land Acquisition - Payment of compensation· - Mode of- Held: 
When the land is compulsorily acquired, it is for the Requisitioning 
Authority to make paymelll and does not require the land-owner to 
cvme and receive the paymelll. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fai'° 
compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 
Rehabilitation aud Resettlement Act, 2013, where an Award 
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been 
pJ1ssed and in case compensation has not been paid to the land 
owner or deposited before the Court in terms of the requirements 
under the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings get lapsed, as if 
there is no acquisition. [Para 5[ [766-F) 
2. It cannot be said that since the appellants failed to approach 
the quarters concerned 
for the compensation, they cannot be 
granted any relief. When a land is compulsorily acquired, it is for 
the Requisitioning Authority to make the payment and does not 
require the land owner to come and receive the payment. [Para 
6) [766-G-H) 
764 
VJJAY LATKA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
3. As no compensation has been paid to the appellants in 
. terms of the Award passed in the year 2005, the appellants are 
entitled to succeed. The proceedings for acquisition of land of 
the appellants and covered by the Notification issued under 
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and leading to 
the Award referred to above stand set aside as having been lapsed. 
[Paras 8, 9J 1767-C-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4864 of 
2016. 
765 
A 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2008 in CWP No. 
4118 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at 
C 
Chandigarh. 
Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, Vineet Garg, T.L. Garg for the 
Appellants. 
Dinesh Chander Yadav, AAG, M.K. Bansal, A.S. Rishi, Sanjay 
Kumar Visen for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2.The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.05.2008 
in Civil Writ Petition No. 4118/2006 of the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana. The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging 
the Notification dated 11.11.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short' 1894 Act') and the declaration dated 
07.11.2003 and Award dated 3 l.10.2005. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition on the sole ground that since Award had already been 
passed, the writ petition was not maintainable . 
. 
3. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the writ petition, in 
view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and 
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 
2013 (For short '2013 Act') appellants have filed an additional affidavit 
stating therein that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed as far 
as the land of the appellants are concerned. Since according to the 
appellants, the respondent State has neither paid the compensation 
nor taken physical possession of the land, this court directed the State 
to respond to the affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 19th April, 
2016 has been filed before this Court by the Administrator, Haryana 
E 
F 
G 
H 
766 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
Urban Development Authority. At paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is 
stated that the award was made on 3 I . I 0 .2005 and "that possession of 
the land was taken over on as is where is basis by the Land Acquisition 
Collector on 31. l 0.2005 .. , .. ''. Whether taking over the possession in 
such a manner wo11ld satisfy the statutory requirement of taking 
physical possession is a question to be addressed. 
4. However, since the appellants are otherwise entitled to succeed 
in this ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.