Page 1

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 1

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

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10532 OF 2014   (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012)

  SITA RAM     ………APPELLANT

Vs.

  STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.           ………RESPONDENTS

  J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

       Leave granted.  

2.  This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final  

judgment and order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the  

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in  

Civil Writ Petition No. 9710 of 2003 dismissing  

the Writ Petition.

Page 2

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 2

The  facts  of  the  case  are  briefly  stated  

hereunder:-

3.  The  appellant  started  his  factory  for  

manufacturing  fireworks  in  the  year  1990  at  

Village  Kasar,  Tehsil  Bahadurgarh,  District  

Jhajjar and was granted a licence by the Chief  

Controller  of  Explosives  for  storage  of  

explosives  under  the  Explosives  Rules,  1983  

framed under the Explosives Act, 1884.   

4.  Under the Explosives Rules, it is mandatory  

to  maintain open  radial safety  distance of  71  

meters from all sides around the magazine storing  

2  Lakh  Kgs.  of  fireworks.   The  letter  dated  

05.03.2001 was issued to the appellant’s firm by  

the  Joint  Chief  Controller  of  Explosives,  

Faridabad, stipulating that 71 meters of safety  

radial distance must be maintained from all sides  

of the magazine storing 2 Lakh kgs of fireworks.  

The explosive rules further mandate that land of  

71 meter radius around the magazine should also

Page 3

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 3

be free from construction for the continuance of  

the explosive license.

5.  As  per  document  Annexure  P-9-H  dated  

28.05.1990, it appears that the permission was  

granted  to  store  the  explosives  only  to  the  

extent of 1,700kgs.  So far as the requirement  

for  keeping  71  meters  of  mandatory  safety  

distance, it is applicable only in cases where  

permission has been granted to store explosive to  

the extent of 2 lakh kgs. This fact is evident  

from the document P-9-Q.  

6. A letter dated 05.03.2001 was issued by the  

Department  of  Explosives.   Initially,  the  

appellant  got  permission  for  manufacture  of  

fireworks  of  1700  kgs.  but  later  on  the  

Department of Explosives granted licence to the  

appellant’s  firm  for  storing  2  lakh  kgs  of  

fireworks  in  the  magazine  situated  at  the  

appellant’s land. The said letter dated 5.03.2001

Page 4

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 4

is written to M/s Gupta and Co. and it states  

thus:-

“Adverting to your letter dated  2.3.2001, it is clarified that  minimum  land  required  for  a  firework  factory  having  6  processing  sheds  may  be  computed as follows as required  under  the  Explosive   Rules,  1983.  The  magazine  accommodating  2,00,000  kgs  of  fireworks should observe radial  safety distance of 71 mts. from  all sides.”

7. Vide letter dated 27.10.1999, the Department  

of  Explosives,  Government  of  India,  granted  

amended  permission  for  possession  and  sale  of  

fireworks to the extent of 2 lakh kgs at magazine  

situated  at  village  Kasar,  District  Rohtak,  

Haryana which reads as under :-   

“Licence  No.E.25(11)  51  dated  31.03.1992 is hereby amended for  possession and sale of fireworks  (Class  7,  Divn.  2  sub-divn.  1  &2)  –  2,00,000  kgs.  from  your  magazine at village Kasar, Distt  Rohtak (Haryana).”

Page 5

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 5

But  as  stated  above,  the  land  in  question  is  

necessarily  required  as  per  the  mandate  of  

Explosive Rules.

8. On 24.01.2001 the Government of Haryana issued  

Notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as  

“the Act”) for acquisition of land of villages  

Kassar, Sankhol, Jhakhodha and Saidpur, Tehsil-

Bahadurgarh,  District-Jhajjar  including  land  

measuring 71 Kanals owned by the appellant for  

the purpose of development of area.  

9. Objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act  

for  release  of  the  appellant’s  land  was  

considered and found to have merit and part of  

the  appellant’s  land  was  released  from  

acquisition. Following the same, the notification  

was  issued  under  Section  6  of  the  Act,  under  

which the remaining part of the appellant’s land  

that  was  not  released  from  acquisition  was  

acquired  whereas  land  belonging  to  other

Page 6

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 6

industries such as M/s. Rockwell Industries Pvt.  

Ltd., M/s H.B. Plastics Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rocklight  

Chemicals  and Resins  Pvt. Ltd.,  M/s Prag  Auto  

Products Ltd. were released from acquisition and  

these industries were even given permission for  

change  of  land  use.  It  is  argued  that  the  

respondents thus had adopted a pick and choose  

policy, which is a clear case of discrimination,  

violative  of Article  14 of  the Constitution  &  

also amounts to unreasonable and arbitrary action  

by them.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant  

filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9710 of 2003 before  

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh. The High Court was pleased to grant  

interim restraint order against the respondents  

in favour of appellant in regard to possession of  

the  land  in  question  and  passed  order  dated  

03.07.2003 in CWP No. 9710 of 2003 in terms of

Page 7

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 7

order dated 25.11.2002 passed in a connected CWP  

No. 13557 of 2002.  

11.  During  the  pendency  of  the  said  writ  

petition,  the  State  Government  framed  a  

comprehensive  policy  dated  26.10.2007  for  

releasing land from acquisition proceedings and  

placed reliance upon certain relevant following  

clauses:

“1.  No  request  will  be  considered  after one year of award.  Only those  requests will be considered by the  Government  where  objections  under  Section 5-A were filed. 2.     XXX    XXX   XXX   XXX 3. Any  factory  or  commercial  establishment which existed prior to  Section  4  will  be  considered  for  release. 4-5.   XXX    XXX   XXX   XXX 6. That  the  Government  may  also  consider  release  any  land  in  the  interest  of  integrated  and  planned  development for where the owner have  approached  the  Hon’ble  Courts  and  have  obtained  by  stay  against  dispossession.

Provided that the Government may  release  any  land  on  the  grounds  other  than  stated  above  under

Page 8

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 8

Section  48  (1)  of  the  Act  under  exceptionally  justifiable  circumstance for the reasons to be  recorded in writing.”

Under this policy, land having construction  

prior to issuance of notification under Section 4  

of the Act were not included in the acquisition.  

The factory and commercial establishments which  

existed prior to issuance of notification under  

Section 4 of the Act were also to be released  

from acquisition. The constructed area of ‘A’ and  

‘B’ grade should be left out from acquisition.  

Further,  in  cases  where  the  owners  of  land  

approached the Courts and got stay order against  

their dispossession were also to be considered  

for release from acquisition.  

12. This Court considered the said policy in the  

case of  Sube Singh & Ors  v. State of Haryana &  

Ors.1 and  granted  ‘Stay  of  dispossession’  in  

1

Page 9

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 9

similar matter involving the same policies issued  

by the State of Haryana for releasing the land,  

in SLP (c) No.15645 of 2008, Kishan Das & Ors. v.  

State  of  Haryana  &  Ors. vide  order  dated  

18.07.2008.  Further,  this  Court  by  its  order  

dated  05.01.2011,  granted  ‘Leave’  in  the  same  

matter along with batch of other matters, wherein  

also the same policy of the State of Haryana is  

involved for releasing such land covered under  

the policy from acquisition.

13.  The High  Court after  examining the  facts,  

evidence produced on record and circumstances of  

the case observed that the permission was granted  

to the appellant to set up a fire cracker factory  

and as per Annexure P-9-H dated 28.05.1990, the  

said  permission  was  granted  to  store  the  

explosives only to the extent of 1700 kgs. On the  

statutory  requirement  of  keeping  71  meters  of  

mandatory safety distance, the High Court held  

that  it  was  applicable  only  in  cases  where  

 (2001) 7 SCC 545

Page 10

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 10

permission was granted to store explosives to the  

extent of 2,00,000 kgs. which was evident from  

Annexure  P-9-Q.  It  was  further  held  that  the  

documents put on record indicate that in the year  

1991,  permission was  granted in  favour of  the  

appellant to set up a fire cracker factory as per  

document P-9-H dated 28.05.1990 and that there  

was nothing on record at any time that permission  

was granted to the appellant by the Joint Chief  

Controller of Explosives, North Circle, Faridabad  

to store 2,00,000 kgs. of explosives was either  

cancelled or modified. From the perusal of the  

photographs produced that the industrial unit was  

not in working condition, there was wild growth  

of grass, and the doors and window panes of the  

building were also found to be missing is the  

contention  urged  by  the  respondents.  The  High  

Court held that there was no visible activity in  

sight so far as the premises is concerned in the  

photographs and that after getting the license;  

the  so-called  industrial  unit  was  not  in

Page 11

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 11

operation.  Therefore,  the  objections  raised  by  

the appellant under Section 5A of the Act to the  

preliminary notification are not tenable in law  

and the High Court held that no legal flaw has  

been shown to the Court by the appellant that  

acquisition  proceedings  are  bad  in  law.  

Therefore, the High Court opined that there is  

nothing  to  interfere  with  the  acquisition  

proceedings at the instance of the appellant and  

dismissed the petition.  

14.  The  correctness  of  the  said  impugned  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  is  

challenged by the appellant by filing this Civil  

Appeal  urging  various  legal  contentions.  Brief  

and  relevant facts  are stated  for the  limited  

purpose  in  this  case  as  we  have  examined  the  

application filed by the appellant under Section  

24(2)  of  the  Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

Page 12

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 12

and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of  

2013’).   

15. This Court vide order dated 19.03.2012 issued  

notice  and  dasti  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  

process  and  directed  to  maintain  “status  quo”  

with  regard to  the subject  property. The  said  

interim order is still in force.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant placed  

reliance upon the decision of this Court in the  

case  of  Sube  Singh  (supra) stating  certain  

relevant facts relating to the land acquisition  

of the appellant and referring to the affidavit  

of Shri T.L. Satyaprakash, Special Secretary to  

Government  of  Haryana  and  Director,  Industries  

and Commerce, Haryana Chandigarh dated 19.04.2011  

filed in CWP No. 7218 of 2002 before the High  

Court  in  compliance  of  its  order  dated  

24.01.2011, where the status of land of various  

writ petitions pending before the High Court was

Page 13

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 13

given including the appellant’s land which reads  

thus:  

“That it is further respectfully  submitted  that  the  State  Government  issued  another  notification  dated  24.01.2001  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  for  acquisition of land measuring 616  acres  1  kanal  9  marlas,  for  a  public  purpose,  namely,  for  development of industrial area in  villages Baadurgah, Kasr Sankhol,  Jhakhoda  and  Saadpur,  Tehsil  Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.  A  per  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the  said  notification  was  published in the official Gazette  dated  24.01.2001  of  the  State  Government  and  in  two  daily  newspapers, namely “Hari Bhoomi”  dated  11.02.2001  and  “Financial  Express”  dated  10.02.2001.  The  State  Government  issued  notification  dated  19.07.2001  under Section 48 of the Act for  land measuring 1 acres 7 kanals  17  marlas  of  village  Sankhol.  Subsequently, anther notification  dated 09.01.2002 was issued under  Section 48 of the Act for land  measuring  6  acres  1  kanal  15  marlas of village Sankhol. Subsequently,  the  State  

Government after considering the  recommendations  of  the  LAC,  Jhajjar and the comments of the  HSIIDC, issued notification dated

Page 14

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 14

22.01.2002 under Section 6 of the  Act  for  acquisition  of  land  measuring 576 actres 5 kanals 12  marlas  of  villages  Bahadurgarh,  Kassar,  Sankhol,  Jhakhoda  and  Saadpur,  tehsil  Bahadurgarh,  district  Jhajjar.   As  per  the  provisions of the Act, the said  notification was published in the  official Gazette dated 22.01.2002  of  the  State  Government  and  in  two  daily  newspapers,  namely,  “Hari  Bhoomi”  dated  31.01.2002  and  ‘The  Pioneer”  dated  03.02.2002.   The  LAC,  Jhajjar,  announced the Award of the land  comprising  in  villages  Bahadurgarh, Kassar, and Saadpur  on  08.10.2003  and  of  villages  Saadpur Sankhol and Jhakhoda on  23.12.2003,  thus  completing  the  acquisition proceedings.”

The learned counsel for the appellant has also  

placed  strong  reliance  upon  the  additional  

affidavit  filed  by  T.L.  Satyaprakash,  Special  

Secretary to Government, Haryana, wherein he has  

stated at paragraph 8, the relevant portion of  

which reads thus:

“…That  the  total  amount  of  the  entire  acquired  land  measuring  272  acres  3  kanals   15  marlas  comes  to  Rs.9125156/-  It  is

Page 15

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 15

further submitted that there were  794 claimants in all out of whom  748 persons have already received  their compensation to the tune of  Rs.  88177626/-.    The  balance  amount of compensation belongs to  the  remaining  46  persons  including  the  petitioner  amount  to Rs.3027530/- out of which the  petitioner’s  compensation  comes  to  Rs.1652952/-  and  the  said  amount  stands  deposited  in  the  Court on 09.04.2014.”

17.  The learned  counsel for  the appellant  has  

placed strong reliance upon the interim order of  

the High Court dated 03.07.2003 and this Court  

vide  interim  order  dated  19.03.2012  passed  

“status  quo”  regarding  possession  of  land  

involved in the proceedings which is in force in  

support of plea for grant of relief under Section  

24(2) of the Act of 2013 as the appellant has  

been in actual physical possession of the land  

and not been paid compensation in respect of the  

acquired land and building. The award was passed  

by the Land Acquisition Collector in this case on  

08.10.2003  which  is  more  than  5  years  as  on

Page 16

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 16

01.01.2014, when the above Act came into force  

and undisputedly the deposit of the compensation  

payable to this appellant as per the statement of  

fact sworn to in the affidavit referred to supra  

is on 09.04.2014 which is more than 5 years from  

the  date  of  the  award  passed  prior  to  the  

commencement of the Act of 2013.

18. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the  

acquisition proceedings of land and building of  

this appellant have lapsed under Section 24(2) of  

the Act of 2013.

19. The interpretation of Section  24(2) of the  

Act of 2013 has been made by this Court in Pune  

Municipal  Corporation  and  Anr.  v.  Harakchand  

Misirimal  Solanki  &  Ors.2, Union  of  India  &  Others v. Shiv Raj & Others3, Bimla Devi & Others  

v. State of Haryana & Others4, Bharat Kumar  v.  

State of Haryana & Another5 and Sree Balaji Nagar  

2 (2014) 3 SCC 183 3 (2014) 6 SCC 564 4 (2014) 6 SCC 589 5 (2014) 6 SCC 586

Page 17

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 17

Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu &  

others6. The relevant paras 20 and 21 from the  

three Judge Bench judgement of this Court in Pune  

Municipal  Corporation  &  Anr. case  (supra)  are  

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.

6 Civil Appeal No. 8700 of 2013

Page 18

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 18

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

Page 19

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 19

is no merit in the contention  of the Corporation.”

20.  Further,  this  Court  in  the  case  of Sree  

Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of  

Tamil Nadu & Ors.7,  held  that Section 24(2) of  

the  Act of 2013 does not exclude any period  

during  which  the  land  acquisition  proceeding  

might have remained stayed on account of stay or  

injunction  granted  by  any  court.  It  was  

conclusively  held  that  the  Legislature  has  

consciously omitted to extend the period of five  

years indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act of  

2013  for  grant  of  relief  in  favour  of  land  

owners 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.  

21. In the light of the above findings recorded  

by  us  on  the  rival  factual  and  legal  

contentions, and considering the averments made  

in  the  application  and  documents  produced  on  7  2014 (10) SCALE 388

Page 20

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 20

record and after examining Section 24(2) of the  

Act  of  2013  along  with  the  decision  of  Pune  

Municipal Corporation  and other cases referred  

to supra, we are of the considered view that the  

plea  of  the  appellant  should  be  accepted  and  

relief as prayed for has to be granted for the  

undisputed reason that the Award was passed on  

08.10.2003 and five years have elapsed long back  

and the compensation undisputedly was not paid  

within 5 years to the appellant. The conditions  

mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013  

are satisfied by the appellant for allowing the  

plea as stated by him that the land acquisition  

proceedings in respect of his acquired land and  

building must be deemed to have lapsed in terms  

of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The above  

mentioned three Judge Bench decision and other  

cases  of  this  Court  referred  to  supra  with  

regard to the interpretation made under Section  

24(2)  of  the  Act  of  2013,  would  be  aptly

Page 21

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 21

applicable with all fours to the fact situation  

in respect of the land covered in this appeal.  

22.  In  view  of  the  aforesaid  findings  and  

reasons recorded by us, the prayer made in the  

application of the appellant is allowed holding  

that the acquisition proceedings in respect of  

the appellant’s land/building have elapsed. I.A.  

No. 5 is allowed. The appeal is disposed of in  

the above said terms by quashing the acquisition  

proceedings  of  the  land/building  of  the  

appellant.

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

                                     ……………………………………………………………J.                             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi,   November 25, 2014

Page 22

C.A.@ SLP(C) NO. 5346 OF 2012      - 22

ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.10               SECTION IVB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No. …......./2014 arising from SLP(C) No(s).  5346/2012 SITA RAM                                        Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.                       Respondent(s) Date : 25/11/2014 This petition was called on for JUDGMENT   today.

For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati,Adv. For Respondent(s)                      Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Adv.      Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv.        Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Leave granted.

The appeal as well as application(s), if any, are  disposed of in terms of the signed order.  

   (VINOD KUMAR)  (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)