Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4864 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 22578 of 2008)

VIJAY LATKA & ANR. APPELLANTS  

                               VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.     RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1.    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 31.10.2005.  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

Page 2

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 Urban Development Authority.  At paragraph 3 of the  affidavit, it is stated that the award was made on 31.10.2005  and “that possession of the land was taken over on as is  where  is  basis  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  on  31.10.2005.....”.  Whether taking over the possession in such  a manner would 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 case we leave that question open. It is the  case of the appellants that no compensation in respect of the  acquired land has been paid to them.  Learned counsel for the  respondents submits that whoever approached the Authority, the  compensation has been paid.  The learned counsel also invited  our attention to paragraph 8 of the affidavit which reads as  follows:

“That  as  regards  the  compensation  amount  for  acquired land, office of the Land Acquisition Officer,  Panchkula has reported that the compensation has not  been obtained by the petitioners though compensation to

Page 3

the  extent  of  Rs.4,00,93,086/-  has  already  been  obtained by other land owners who came forward to take  the compensation.  Therefore, there was due offer of  compensation and the present case does not fall within  the meaning of provision contained in Section 31(2) of  the Act, 1894.”

5. Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, where an Award  under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been passed 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.  In case compensation has not been paid, the land acquisition  proceedings  in  respect  of  that  acquisition  will  stand  lapsed, as if there is no acquisition.

6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for  the respondents is that whoever approached the Haryana Urban  Development Authority or the competent authority has been  paid  compensation  and  since  the  appellants  failed  to  approach the quarters concerned for the compensation, they  cannot  be  granted  any  relief.  We  find  this  contention  difficult  to  appreciate.   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.

7. As  and  when  land  is  taken  over  by  way  of

Page 4

acquisition, the land owner has to be compensated with the  amount of compensation duly determined under the Act.  In  case  there  is  any  dispute  as  to  who  is  to  be  paid  the  amount, the same is to be deposited in Court in terms of  Section 31 of the 1894 Act.  In this case before us, the  stand  of  the  Requisitioning  Authority,  namely,  Haryana  Development Authority is  that the money is ready with them  and  it  is  for  the  land  owner  to  come  and  receive  the  payment.  This stand is not permissible under the law.  It  is for the authorities concerned to pay the money and take  the land and in case there is any dispute as to whom the  money should be paid, then the same has to be deposited in  Court.

8. As admittedly no compensation has been paid to the  appellants in terms of the above mentioned Award passed in  the  year  2005,  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  succeed.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

9. 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.

Page 5

10. The  learned  counsel  for  the  Haryana   Urban  Development  Authority  submits  that  the  land  of  the  appellants has been acquired for the purpose of development  scheme and it comes under the Green Belt.  We make it clear  that this judgment would not stand in the way of the HUDA  taking  fresh  steps  for  requisition  of  the  land  of  the  appellants under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

11.  The appeal is allowed.  No costs.

   ................J.   [KURIAN JOSEPH]

 ....................J.             [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

  NEW DELHI;   MAY 05, 2016