Page 1

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    1                                     

NON-REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.NOS. 3-4 OF 2014  

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3872 OF 2010   

  RAM KISHAN & ORS               ………APPELLANTS

Vs.

  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS        ………RESPONDENTS

    J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

1.  I.A. No. 4 for exemption from filing official  

translation is ordered.

 2.  I.A. No.3 in Civil Appeal No. 3872 of 2010 is  

filed by the applicants/appellant Nos. 24-28 (for

Page 2

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    2                                     

short  ‘the  applicants’)  seeking  direction  and  

appropriate orders for disposal of this appeal in  

terms  of  Section  24(2)  of  the  Right  to  Fair  

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,  

Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Act,  2013  (in  

short  ‘the  Act  of  2013’).  The  appellant-land  

owners  have  come  to  this  Court  questioning  the  

correctness  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

13.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Civil  Writ  Petition  

No.3823  of  2008,  wherein  the  writ  petition  was  

dismissed  on  the  ground  that  the  same  was  not  

maintainable after passing of the Award.

3.  The brief facts are mentioned hereunder.      

   The appellant nos. 24-28 are the owners and in  

possession of the land in question bearing khewat  

no. 260 Khasra no.46 killa nos.1(3-18), 2(7-14),  

3/1(0-16), 8/2(0-16), 9(8-0), 10(6-1) and 26(0-5)  

totally  measuring  27  kanals  13  marlas  of  land  

situated  in  the  revenue  estate  of  Village

Page 3

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    3                                     

Kumashpur Tehsil and Distict Sonipat(Haryana). The  

appellants have been in continuous possession of  

the  aforesaid  land  in  question  till  date  and  

harvesting crops.

4.  On  20.01.2003  the  respondents  published  a  

notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as  

‘the L.A. Act’) bearing No. LAC (F)-NTLA/2003/137.  

Thereafter on 16.01.2004, the respondents issued  

notification  under  Section  6  of  the  L.A.  Act  

bearing  No.  LAC  (F)-  NTLA/2004/190.  The  Land  

Acquisition Collector passed an award bearing No.7  

of the year 2006-2007 dated 14.01.2006.

5.  The appellants challenged the said notification  

in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide Civil  

Writ Petition No.3823 of 2008. The High Court vide  

its judgment and order dated 13.03.2008 dismissed  

the writ petition by assigning untenable reasons.

Page 4

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    4                                     

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed  

this appeal.

6.  The learned counsel for the appellants placed  

strong  reliance  on  the  application  filed  under  

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 which has come  

into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, the said provision  

is extracted hereunder:-

“24(2)Notwithstanding  anything  contained in sub-section (1), in case  of  land  acquisition  proceedings  initiated under the LA Act, 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  whether  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  specified  in  the  notifications  for  acquisition  under  Section 4 of the said land acquisition

Page 5

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    5                                     

and shall be entitled to compensation  in accordance with the provisions of  this Act.”

7.  It is contended that in the instant case, the  

appellants  are  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as the physical  

possession  of  the  land  involved  in  these  

proceedings has not been taken till date and no  

compensation is paid to the appellants though the  

award has been made on 14.01.2006. Therefore, the  

said provision under Section 24(2) of the Act of  

2013  squarely  applies  to  the  case  of  the  

appellants and the land acquisition proceedings in  

so  far  as  the  appellants  land  is  concerned  be  

deemed to have elapsed.

8.  Further, the learned counsel for the appellants  

placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in  

the cases of  Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.  

v.  Harakchand  Misirimal  Solanki  &  Ors.1, Bharat  

1

(2014) 3 SCC 183

Page 6

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    6                                     

Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another2, Bimla Devi &  

Others v. State of Haryana & Others3 and Union of  

India & others v. Shiv Raj & Others4 and submitted  

that the ratio in the aforesaid judgments squarely  

apply  to  the  present  case  on  hand.  Thus,  the  

acquisition  proceedings  qua  the  land  of  the  

appellants  have  to  be  declared  as  lapsed  by  

applying the provisions of Section 24(2) of the  

Act of 2013.

9.  We have heard the learned counsel for both the  

parties.  After  examining  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the  

considered view that neither the possession of the  

land in question has been taken by the respondents  

nor was the compensation paid to the appellants  

though more than five years have passed since the  

date of the award passed on 14.01.2006. Therefore,  

the  acquisition  proceedings  of  the  land  of  the  

2 (2014) 6 SCC 586 3 (2014) 6 SCC 583 4 (2014) 6 SCC 564

Page 7

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    7                                     

appellants have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of  

the  Act  of  2013.  The  said  provision  has  been  

succinctly  interpreted  by  the  three  Judge  Bench  

decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of Pune  

Municipal Corporation  (supra). The relevant paras  

20  and  21  of  the  aforesaid  case  is  extracted  

hereunder:-

“20…….it  is  clear  that  the  award  pertaining to the subject land has been  made  by  the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer more than five years prior to  the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is  also  admitted  position  that  compensation  so  awarded  has  neither  been  paid  to  the  landowners/persons  interested nor deposited in the court.  The deposit of compensation amount in  the Government treasury is of no avail  and cannot be held to be equivalent to  compensation  paid  to  the  landowners/persons interested. We have,  therefore,  no  hesitation  in  holding  that  the  subject  land  acquisition  proceedings  shall  be  deemed  to  have  lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013  Act.

21. The  argument  on  behalf  of  the  Corporation  that  the  subject  land

Page 8

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    8                                     

acquisition  proceedings  have  been  concluded  in  all  respects  under  the  1894 Act and that they are not affected  at all in view of Section 114(2) of the  2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is  noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of  the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act. Sub- section  (2)  of  Section  114,  however,  makes Section 6 of the General Clauses  Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the  effect of repeal but this is subject to  the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under  Section  24(2)  land  acquisition  proceedings  initiated  under  the  1894  Act,  by  legal  fiction,  are  deemed  to  have lapsed where award has been made  five  years  or  more  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  2013  Act  and  possession of the land is not taken or  compensation  has  not  been  paid.  The  legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes  into  operation  as  soon  as  conditions  stated  therein  are  satisfied.  The  applicability  of  Section  6  of  the  General  Clauses  Act  being  subject  to  Section 24(2), there is no merit in the  contention of the Corporation.”

10. Further, reliance was placed on the decision  

of this Court in the case of  Bimla Devi & Ors.  

(supra) and  Sree  Balaji  Nagar  Residential

Page 9

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    9                                     

Association  v. State  of  Tamil  Nadu  &  others5,  

wherein the  law  laid  down  in  the  case  of Pune  

Municipal Corporation  (supra) was reiterated. In  

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra),  

it was held that the provision under Section 24(2)  

of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during  

which the land acquisition proceedings might have  

remained stayed on account of stay or injunction  

granted by any court. It was further held that the  

Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the  

period of five years indicated in Section 24(2)  

even  if  the  proceedings  had  been  delayed  on  

account of an order of stay or injunction granted  

by a court of law or for any reason.  

11.  Further  in  the  case  of Shiv  Raj  &  Ors.  

(supra), this Court discussed the circular issued  

by  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Urban  

Development,  Delhi  Division  wherein  the  legal  

opinion  of  the  Solicitor  General  of  India  

clarified the statutory provisions of the Act of  5 2014 (10) SCALE 388

Page 10

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    10                                   

2013 with respect to lapsing of land acquisition  

proceedings  under  Section  24(2)  of  the  Act  of  

2013.  The  relevant  para  25  is  extracted  

hereunder:-  

“25..... 3.Interpretation of five  years’  period  “With  regard  to  this issue viz. interpretation of  five  years’  period,  two  situations have been envisaged in  cases  where  the  acquisition  has  been  initiated  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  viz. (1)  parties  whose  lands  have  been  acquired  have  refused  to  accept  the compensation and (2) parties  whose  lands  have  been  acquired  having just parted with physical  possession of the land. However,  in both the above situations, as  on  1-1-2014,  the  period  of  5  years would not have ended and in  such cases, the advisory seeks to  clarify  that  the  new  law  shall  apply  only  if  the  situation  of  pendency continues unchanged for  a  period  that  equals  to  or  exceeds five years. In my view,  it  should  be  further  clarified  that  in  none  of  the  cases  the  period of five years would have  elapsed pursuant to an award made  under Section 11 from the date of

Page 11

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    11                                   

commencement of the Act and that  the benefit of Section 24(2) will  be available to those cases which  are  pending  and  where  during  pendency,  the  situation  has  remained unchanged with physical  possession not being handed over  or  compensation  not  having  been  accepted and the period equals to  or exceeds five years.

4. Limitation

As regards this item relating to  the  period  spent  during  litigation  would  also  be  accounted  for  the  purpose  of  determining whether the period of  five years has to be counted or  not, it should be clarified that  it will apply only to cases where  awards were passed under Section  11 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894, 5 years or more prior to 1- 1-2014  as  specified  in  Section  24(2)  of  the  Act,  to  avoid  any  ambiguity. Since this legislation  has  been  passed  with  the  objective of benefiting the land- losers,  this  interpretation  is  consistent  with  that  objective  and  also  added  as  a  matter  of  abundant caution that the period  spent  in  litigation  challenging  an award cannot be excluded for  the  purpose  of  determining

Page 12

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    12                                   

whether the period of five years  has  elapsed  or  not.  If  the  possession has not been taken or  compensation  has  not  been  paid  due to the challenge to the land  acquisition  proceedings,  the  pendente  lite  period  will  be  included  to  determine  the  five  year  period  and  including  such  period if the award was made five  years  or  more  prior  to  the  commencement of the Act, then the  said acquisition proceedings will  be  deemed  to  have  elapsed  and  fresh proceedings, if so desired,  will  have  to  be  initiated  in  accordance with the new Act.

The  Objects  and  Reasons  of  the  2013 Act and particularly Clause  18 thereof fortify the view taken  by  this  Court  in  the  judgments  referred  to  hereinabove.  Clause  18 thereof reads as under:

“18. The benefits under the new  law would be available in all the  cases  of  land  acquisition  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  where award has not been made or  possession of land has not been  taken.”

Page 13

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    13                                   

12. By considering the aforesaid decisions of this  

Court  and  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

present  case  on  hand,  we  are  of  the  view  that  

physical possession of the land belonging to the  

appellants has not been taken by the respondents  

and more than five years have elapsed since the  

making  of  the  award  on  14.01.2006  when  the  

Resettlement  Act,  2013  came  into  force  on  

01.01.2014.  Therefore,  the  conditions  stated  in  

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled for  

allowing the plea of the appellants that the land  

acquisition proceedings be deemed to have elapsed.  

The said legal principle laid down by this Court  

in  the  case  of  Pune  Municipal  Corporation  and  

other  cases  referred  to  supra  with  regard  to  

interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013  

are  applicable  with  all  fours  to  the  fact  

situation on hand with respect to the land covered  

in this appeal and for granting relief as prayed  

by the appellants in this application.

Page 14

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    14                                   

13.  In view of the aforesaid decisions of this  

Court  referred  to  supra,  and  the  findings  and  

reasons recorded by us the application filed under  

Section  24(2)  of  the  Act  of  2013  is  allowed.  

Consequently, having regard to the facts of this  

case,  this  appeal  is  allowed  by  quashing  the  

acquisition proceedings in so far as the land of  

the applicants/appellant Nos. 24-28 are concerned.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

                        ……………………………………………………………J.                          [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                        ……………………………………………………………J.                           [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi,                             

November 27, 2014

Page 15

I.A.Nos.3-4 of 2014 in C.A. No. 3872 of 2010                    15                                   

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment     COURT NO.9          SECTION IV

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A. No. 3-4 in Civil Appeal  No(s).  3872/2010

RAM KISHAN & ORS.                            Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                      Respondent(s)

Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT  today.

For Appellant(s)    Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv.

                    Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav,Adv.  

For Respondent(s)    Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.     

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the  

judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.

I.A.No. 4/2014 for exemption from filing official  

translation is ordered.

I.A. No. 3/2014 is allowed.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

     (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)