Ravi Jain and Others v. State of Haryana & Ors

CWP No. 896 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No. 2306-2023 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 896 of 2018o(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2023

RavioJainoandoothers …..Petitioners

versus

StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE

Present : Mr. S.P.Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

RAVIoSHANKERoJHA,oCHIEFoJUSTICEo CMoNo.o2306oofo2023o The instant petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide the order dated 23.01.2023. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners' seeking restoration of the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the writ petition is hereby restored. Main case is taken up for hearing on board today itself and the arguments of the respective parties are heard with respect to the main petition. MAINoPETITI Noo

¶1The petitioners have approached this Court by instituting instant writ petition praying for quashing of the notifications dated 18.10.2002 and CWP No. 896 of 2018 2

08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1894") respectively followed by the award dated 05.09.2005,o inter-alia, on the ground that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 2013") as neither the petitioners have received the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector nor possession of the acquired land has been taken from them as they are still living and residing in their houses constructed on the land in dispute.

¶2The petitioners have stated themselves to be owners in possession of the land comprised in Killa No. 12//22/2 (7-6), 20//2 (6-18) total measuring 14 kanals 4 marlas to the extent of their respective shares situated in the revenue estate of Village Sahajanpur, Tehsil & District Sonepat. The petitioner No. 1 is stated to be owner in possession in 46/284 share which comes to 2 kanals 6 marlas and has claimed to have constructed a boundary wall, lintel house having four rooms, kitchen, lobby and a well. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be in possession of a plot measuring 8 marlas claiming to have constructed one room and a boundary wall thereon. Petitioner No. 3 is stated to be the owner to the extent of 8 marlas whereupon nine rooms and one shop have been claimed to have been constructed. Petitioner no. 4 is stated to be co-sharer to the extent of 7 marlas land whereupon one room and a boundary wall is said to have been constructed and likewise petitioner No. 5 is stated to be owner of 5 marlas land having foundation and boundary wall constructed thereon. CWP No. 896 of 2018 3

¶3As regards the prayer of seeking lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the said prayer is squarely covered against them in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlaloando otherso(2020)o o!CCo"2#, however, he asserts that there is other plea which he would like to press as regards to the "nullityoofoaward" on account of non-payment of compensation amount.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that even though the award was announced on 05.09.2005, no compensation amount was given to the land owners up to 12.07.2007 because the award statement and kabjaovasool was not complete which shows that the Collector was not in a position to offer amount to the land owners even after two years from the date of award. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a letter dated

12.07.2007 written by Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-9. Based upon this, learned counsel has contended that the award itself was illegal, nonest in the eyes of law and thus, was a nullity as it was announced without tendering of compensation amount required in accordance with Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per him the contention of the earlier award being a nullity stands fortified from the fact that the State Government had announced revised award on 05.06.2015 thereby assessing compensation in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013. In sum and substance, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once award itself was a nullity on account of non-compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, CWP No. 896 of 2018 4

acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have validly culminated in accordance with law.

¶5Even though the petitioners have sought to raise challenge to the award dated 05.09.2005 by terming it to be a nullity, it is pertinent to mention that at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 18.01.2018, the petitioners had confined their prayer only qua lapsing of acquisition proceedings on the ground that neither the possession of the land has been taken nor compensation has been paid or deposited in the Reference Court. The order dated 18.01.2018 passed by this Court is extracted here in below:-

"…Itoisocontendedothatoneitherotheocompensationoamounto haso beeno paido noro depositedo witho theo Referenceo Courto ando possessionoisoalsoowithotheopetitioners.o Noticeoofomotionoforo2 .!2.2! ".oo #noouroaskin$,o%r.o&nkuro%ittal,o&dditionalo&dvocateo 'eneral,o (aryana,o alon$witho %r.o %anojo )hankhar,o &&',o (aryana,owhooisopresentoinoCourt,oacceptsonoticeoonobehalfoofo allotheorespondents.o*etofiveosetsoofopaper-bookobeohandedoovero toohimodurin$otheocourseoofoday,ofailin$owhichotheowritopetitiono shallo stando dismissedo foro non-prosecution.o Countero reply-affidavit,oifoany,obeofiledobeforeotheodateofi+edowithoanoadvanceo copyotootheocounseloopposite.o o,heo)istricto,owno-lanner,otheo.stateo#fficeroandotheo *ando&c/uisitionoCollector,otionepat,oalon$withoRevenueotitaffo areo directedo too remaino presento ino Courto alon$witho ori$inalo records...

¶6One of the questions that would require consideration in light of the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing would be whether they can be allowed to expand the scope of writ petition especially after knowing the fate of the petition when at the time of CWP No. 896 of 2018 5

initial hearing, the claim was confined only to the applicability of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, which would in any case, require a valid award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894, 5 years before commencement of the Act of 2013.

¶7The instant petition remained pending in this Court awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of India as regards the interpretation and applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 which came to be decided by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo $s.o Manoharlalo ando otherso (2020)o o !CCo "2# and it was thereafter that instant petition was taken up for hearing.

¶8Controverting the pleas raised by the petitioners, a short reply of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak came to be filed after the pronouncement of the judgment in IndoreoDevelopmento Authorityo$s.oManoharlalo(supra). Placing reliance on the same Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has contended that the land of the petitioners qua their respective shares in Killa No. 12//22/2 (7-6), 20//2 (6-18) situated in Village Sahjanpur Tehsil & District Sonepat, was acquired vide notification dated 18.10.2002 and 08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively; followed by the award dated 05.09.2005 for the public purpose namely, development and utilization of land as residential, institutional and commercial Sector–16, Sonepat. The petitioners had availed the remedy of filing objections postulated in Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, however, having found the land of the petitioners' vacant and since only boundary wall was constructed upto the level of DPC, during the survey conducted by the Department; land was not recommended for release and same was CWP No. 896 of 2018 6

acquired. After the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings with announcement of award dated 05.09.2005, the possession of the land in question was taken by recording rapat rojnamcha No. 20 dated 05.09.2005, which implies that due possession was taken and the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The compensation amount qua the land in question along with other acquired land was duly tendered at the time of announcement of award and was made available to the landowners. He contends that plea raised by the petitioners that they have constructed their house on the land in question and are residing therein is absolutely misconceived because at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Act of 1894, there was no home in existence and the land was lying vacant with only boundary constructed upto the level of DPC. This fact is sufficient to show that the constructions, if any, which is stated to be existing are unauthorized having been raised pursuant to Section 4 notification and substantiating the fact that the petitioners have encroached upon the acquired land illegally.

¶9Substantiating the aspect of vesting of land in the State Government, Mr. Mittal has further contended that the petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 16783 of 2005. The said petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2008 after categorically observing that the writ petition was filed pursuant to announcement of award on 05.09.2005 and taking of possession of the land, therefore, petition itself was not maintainable. Once a finding has been returned by this Court that the possession of the land has been taken, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that they are in the possession of the land in question as owners and even if the CWP No. 896 of 2018 7

argument of them being in possession of the land in question is accepted, it is only in the capacity of trespassers and encroachers.

¶10Further negating the plea of the petitioners that the award announced qua their land is nullity; Mr. Mittal has vehemently contended that once the petitioners have lost challenge to the acquisition proceedings in an earlier round of litigation, they are estopped from raising any plea laying challenge to the finalization of acquisition proceedings. Any such pleas being raised by the petitioners are clearly barred by the principle of resojudicata. He has argued that the validity of award is to be seen only against the touchstone of Sections 11 and 11-A of Act of 1894 which primarily would include two aspects i.e., award is announced within 2 years from the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Act of 1894 and the award was announced with approval of the State Government. Validity of the award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 is not dependent on Section 31 of Act of 1894 which postulates about the manner in which the compensation amount, pursuant to announcement of award is to be paid or deposited in the Court. He places reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlalo(!upra) to contend that stage of Section 31 i.e., Payment of Compensation under Act of 1894 comes only after the passing of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894, except in the case of invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of Act of 1894, where 80% of estimated compensation amount has to be tendered and paid before taking possession of the land.

¶11As per Section 31(1), the Collector has to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and shall pay such amount unless he is prevented from doing so, for any of three contingencies CWP No. 896 of 2018 8

provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 31 in which case he has to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court. The three contingencies are (i) refusal to receive the amount of compensation, (ii) if there be no person competent to alienate the land; (iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or if there is dispute as to the apportionment. The effect of non-compliance of Section 31 is envisaged in Section 34 of Act of 1894. It deals with a situation where any of the obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e., when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the time of taking possession until it is paid or deposited and after one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest payable shall be @ 15% per annum. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act of 1894, when the award is announced under Section 11, thereafter the possession is taken under Section 16, land vests in the State. At this stage, the announcement of the award and taking of possession is not dependent on the payment of compensation; therefore, the question of compliance of Section 31 of the Act of 1894 does not arise at all. The only consequence of non compliance of Section 31 is provided under Section 34 of Act of 1894, which can by no stretch of imagination, would relate back to the validity of the award announced under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, he prays to reject the plea of the petitioners as regards the award being nullity as misconceived and clearly against the scheme of the Act of 1894 itself, besides on the ground that such plea is barred by principle of res-judicata once the earlier petition challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings itself stood dismissed way back in the year 2008. CWP No. 896 of 2018 9

¶12As regards the aspect of compensation, Mr. Mittal submits that pursuant to the announcement of the award on 05.09.2005, the compensation amount was duly tendered and made available to the landowners. He has further stated that earlier the award was announced on 05.09.2005 @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. However, since there was a spurt of litigations seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, only 31.11% of amount of compensation was disbursed among the landowners and as per the law prevalent at that time, the word 1paid2 used in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 was interpreted to mean actual payment or deposit in the Court; in order to save the acquisition proceedings from lapsing, the decision was taken by the State Government to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions relating to assessment of compensation of Act of 2013, qua which the directions were also issued by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2014 passed in CWP No. 8052 of 2009. Accordingly, the additional award was announced on 05.06.2015 for the entire acquired land @ Rs. 414/- per square yard as fixed on 03.06.2015 based upon the assessment made by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge below in reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including 100% solatium multiplier factor and 12% increase in the market value for the actual date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 till the assessment of compensation as per the Act of 2013. The total amount of the compensation of the additional award i.e., Rs. 1,78,92,06,315/- was also tendered out of which Rs. 57,25,46,020/- has been disbursed to the land owners. The petitioners are at liberty to receive the compensation amount. No fault can be attributed to the State agencies for non-payment of compensation as they had fulfilled their obligation to pay CWP No. 896 of 2018 10

the compensation amount after tendering the compensation amount. He submits that this aspect is also covered by the decision of Indoreo Developmento Authorityo (!upra) which has held that the 3tender4 of compensation is sufficient discharge of the obligation to pay compensation and actual payment or deposit in the Court is not required.

¶13In view of the afore-stated facts and placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo$s.o Manoharlaloandootherso(supra), learned Additional Advocate General has contended that none of the grounds for seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings as required under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, as the possession of the land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered, besides the land owners are being paid amount assessed in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013 even though the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was announced way back on

05.09.2005. For declaring the acquisition proceedings to have been lapsed, it is incumbent upon the landowner to show that both the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 i.e. "non-payment of compensation" and "non-taking of possession" co-exists. If one of the contingencies remains unfulfilled, there can be no declaration as regards the lapsing of acquisition proceedings. Since in the case at hand, the possession of the land in question stands taken and the compensation also stands tendered, there can be no declaration as to lapsing of acquisition proceedings as none of the contingencies as prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 is fulfilled.

CWP No. 896 of 2018 11

¶14He further submits that the instant petition is itself not maintainable and the petitioners cannot seek any lapsing of acquisition proceedings as they have lost earlier challenge to the acquisition proceedings, wherein specifically the factum of possession that having been taken has been recorded by this Court while dismissing the writ petition. Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 cannot be used as an umbrella to revive the concluded proceedings as has been held by the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmento Authorityo v.o Manoharlalo ando otherso (!upra). As a conspectus of the aforesaid submissions, he has prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition.

¶15We have heard the arguments made by the respective parties at length. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the matter is covered against the petitioners as regards the plea of lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlaloandootherso(supra), however, since replies were filed long back and the learned counsel appearing for the State has asserted all claims, we deem it appropriate to frame following issues, which require consideration in the backdrop of the submissions advanced in order to decide the litigation for once and all:-

I. Whether the acquisition proceedings can be declared to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2?1 . II. Whether petitioners can raise an! additional plea "hen the notice of #otion "as confined onl! to the aspect of applicabilit! of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2?1 . III. Whether non co#pliance of provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1$%4 "ould render the a"ard announced under Section 11 of the Act of 1$%4 a nullit!. CWP No. 896 of 2018 12

FINDINGSoONoISSUEoNo.oIo:-o

16.k ooooooooTheointerpretationoofoSectiono24(2)oofoActoofo2013ohadoremainedo subjecto matteroofocontroversyoforoquiteoaowhile,ountiloitowasosettledobyoao ConstitutionoBenchoofotheoApexoCourtoinotheocaseoofoIndoreoDevelopmento Authorityo (Supra).o Theo principleso ofo interpretingo theo provisiono wereo summarizedoinotheopenultimateoparagraphoofotheojudgmentoinotheomanneroaso follows:o-o "…366.oIno viewo ofo theo aforesaido discussion,o weo answero theo questionsoasounder:o

366.1.oUnderotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono24(1)(a)oinocaseo theo awardo iso noto madeo aso ono 1-1-2014,o theo dateo ofo commencemento ofo theo 2013o Act,o thereo iso noo lapseo ofo proceedings.oCompensationohasotoobeodeterminedoundero theoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.o

366.2.oIno caseo theo awardo haso beeno passedo withino theo windowoperiodoofofiveoyearsoexcludingotheoperiodocoveredo byoanointerimoorderoofotheoCourt,othenoproceedingsoshallo continueoasoprovidedounderoSectiono24(1)(b)oofotheo2013o Actounderotheo1894oActoasoifoitohasonotobeenorepealed.oo

366.3.oTheo wordo "or"o usedo ino Sectiono 24(2)o betweeno possessionoandocompensationohasotoobeoreadoaso"nor"ooro aso "and".o Theo deemedo lapseo ofo lando acquisitiono proceedingsounderoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActotakeso placeowhereodueotooinactionoofoauthoritiesoforofiveoyearso oro moreo prioro too commencemento ofo theo saido Act,o theo possessionoofolandohasonotobeenotakenonorocompensationo hasobeenopaid.oInootherowords,oinocaseopossessionohaso beenotaken,ocompensationohasonotobeenopaidothenothereoiso noo lapse.o Similarly,o ifo compensationo haso beeno paid,o possessionohasonotobeenotakenothenothereoisonoolapse.oo

366.4.oTheoexpressiono"paid"oinotheomainopartoofoSectiono 24(2)o ofo theo 2013o Acto doeso noto includeo ao deposito ofo compensationoinoCourt.oTheoconsequenceoofonon-deposito isoprovidedoinotheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oinocaseoitohaso noto beeno depositedo witho respecto too majorityo ofo landholdingso theno allo beneficiarieso (landowners)o aso ono theodateoofonotificationoforolandoacquisitionounderoSectiono 4oofotheo1894oActoshallobeoentitledotoocompensationoino accordanceowithotheoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.oInocaseo theoobligationounderoSectiono31oofotheoLandoAcquisitiono Act,o1894ohasonotobeenofulfilled,ointerestounderoSectiono34o ofo theo saido Acto cano beo granted.o Non-deposito ofo compensationo(inoCourt)odoesonotoresultoinotheolapseoofo landoacquisitionoproceedings.oInocaseoofonon-depositowitho CWP No. 896 of 2018 13

respectotootheomajorityoofoholdingsoforofiveoyearsooromore,o compensationounderotheo2013oActohasotoobeopaidotootheo "landowners"o aso ono theo dateo ofo notificationo foro lando acquisitionounderoSectiono4oofotheo1894oAct.oo

366.5.oIno caseo ao persono haso beeno tenderedo theo compensationo aso providedo undero Sectiono 31(1)o ofo theo 1894oAct,oitoisonotoopenotoohimotooclaimothatoacquisitiono hasolapsedounderoSectiono24(2)odueotoonon-paymentooro non-depositoofocompensationoinoCourt.oTheoobligationotoo payoisocompleteobyotenderingotheoamountounderoSectiono 31(1).o Theo landownerso whoo hado refusedo too accepto compensationo oro whoo soughto referenceo foro highero compensation,o cannoto claimo thato theo acquisitiono proceedingsohadolapsedounderoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013o Act.oo

366.6.oTheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActoisotoo beotreatedoasopartoofoSectiono24(2),onotopartoofoSectiono 24(1)(b).oo

366.7.oTheomodeoofotakingopossessionounderotheo1894oActo andoasocontemplatedounderoSectiono24(2)oisobyodrawingo ofo inquesto report/memorandum.o Onceo awardo haso beeno passedoonotakingopossessionounderoSectiono16oofotheo1894o Act,otheolandovestsoinoStateothereoisonoodivestingoprovidedo underoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oAct,oasoonceopossessiono hasobeenotakenothereoisonoolapseounderoSectiono24(2).oo

366.8.oTheo provisionso ofo Sectiono 24(2)o providingo foro ao deemedo lapseo ofo proceedingso areo applicableo ino caseo authoritieso haveo failedo dueo too theiro inactiono too takeo possessionoandopayocompensationoforofiveoyearsooromoreo beforeotheo2013oActocameointooforce,oinoaoproceedingoforo landoacquisitionopendingowithotheoauthorityoconcernedoaso ono1-1-2014.oTheoperiodoofosubsistenceoofointerimoorderso passedobyoCourtohasotoobeoexcludedoinotheocomputationoofo fiveoyears.oo

366.9.oSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActodoesonotogiveoriseotoo newocauseoofoactionotooquestionotheolegalityoofoconcludedo proceedingsoofolandoacquisition.oSectiono24oappliesotooao proceedingo pendingo ono theo dateo ofo enforcemento ofo theo 2013oActoi.e.o1-1-2014.oItodoesonotoreviveostaleoandotime-barredo claimso ando doeso noto reopeno concludedo proceedingso noro allowo landownerso too questiono theo legalityo ofo modeo ofo takingo possessiono too reopeno proceedingsooromodeoofodepositoofocompensationoinotheo treasuryoinsteadoofoCourtotooinvalidateoacquisition…"o o o

17.k ooooooooooooTheosumoandosubstanceoofotheointerpretationoofoSectiono24o(2)o ofotheoActoofo2013obyotheoApexoCourtoisothatobothotheocontingenciesoprovidedo i.e.,oaboutotheophysicalopossessionoandotheopaymentoofocompensationoareotoo CWP No. 896 of 2018 14

be fulfilled, meaning thereby, if either of the conditions is not satisfied, there would be no lapsing. As far as the obligation to make the payment in lieu of the land acquired is concerned, it has been clarified that such obligation to pay is complete by tendering the compensation which would mean that the compensation amount was made available to the land owner and if the same has not been accepted, it will not be available for the land owner to claim that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word 3deposit4 has been interpreted to mean depositing with the Land Acquisition Collector or the treasury or the Reference Court. Drawing of panchnama has been considered to be a valid proof of taking physical possession and once the land stands vested in the State, there is no divesting provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The Apex Court has further clarified that the period for which any interim order was in operation, will be excluded while computing the gap period of five years. Similarly, it has been clarified that Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition as it applies to only those cases wherein the proceedings were pending on the date of enforcement of Act of 2013.

¶18We have discussed in detail the entire discussion made by the Apex Court in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo (!upra)o while deciding a bunch with lead case being C%&oNo.o ' oofo20" otitledoaso!ehhdevo!in(ho andoothersov.o!tateoofo)aryanaoandoothers and encapsulated the principles laid down by the Apex Court as follows:- 3;a<o Ino allo thoseo caseso whereino theo ac/uisitiono processo hado beeno initiatedobutotheoawardohasonotobeenoannouncedounderotiectiono oofo theo&ctoofo "=:,oonotheodateoofocommencementoofotheo&ctoofo2! 6oi.e.o ! .! .2! :,o thereo iso noo lapseo ofo proceedin$so ando theo sameo willo CWP No. 896 of 2018 15

continue,o however,o witho theo ridero thato theo compensationohaso too beo determinedounderotheoprovisionsoofoActoofo2013.(parao363o(1))oo

(b)oAllothoseocasesowhereinotheoawardounderoSectiono11oofotheoActoofo 1894ohasobeenoannouncedopriorotoocommencementoofotheoActoofo2013,o theo provisionso ofo theo Acto ofo 2013o wouldo haveo noo bearingo oro applicationo ando theo proceedingso willo continueo ino respecto ofo thoseo cases,oasoif,otheoActoofo1894ohasonotobeenorepealed.oo

(c)o Theo wordo 'or'o usedo ino betweeno theo botho theo contingencieso ofo Sectiono24(2)oofotheoActoofo2013oisotoobeoreadoaso'nor'ooroaso'and'o whichomeansothatotooseekolapsingoofotheoacquisitionoproceedingsobotho theo contingencieso musto beo fulfilled.o Meaningo thereby,o thato ifo theo possessionohadobeenotakenobutotheocompensationowasonotoreceived,o thereowouldobeonoolapse.oSimilarly,oifocompensationohasobeenoacceptedo butotheopossessionohasonotobeenotaken,othereowouldobeonoolapsing.o (referenceo too parao 99o ando 363(2)o ofo theo judgmento ino Indoreo DevelopmentoAuthorityo(supra)oo

(d)o Aso faro aso theo aspecto ofo compensationo foro theo lando acquiredo iso concerned,o theo Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto ofo Indiao haso categoricallyo observedothatotheoexpressionopaidoinotheomainopartoofoSectiono24(2)oofo theoActoofo2013odoesonotoincludeoaodepositoofocompensationoinoCourt.o Whatoisorequiredotoobeoprovedoisothatotheocompensationoamountowaso tenderedowhichohasobeenoexplainedoinoparao203othatotheotenderingoofo theo amounto wouldo meano thato theo amounto iso madeo availableo too theo landowneroandothatowouldobeoaodischargeoofotheoobligationotoomakeo theopaymentoandoinothatoeventosuchoaopersonocannotobeopenalizedoforo theodefaultoinomakingotheopayment.oWhileoreferringotooSectiono31(1),o 31(2),o 34o ofo theo Acto ofo 1894o ando comparingo themo witho theo parao materiao provisionso i.e.o Sectiono 71o ando 80o ofo theo Acto ofo 2013,o theo Hon'bleoApexoCourtohasoclarifiedothatotheoonlyoconsequenceoofonon-paymentoofocompensationoisotoomakeotheopaymentoofointerestoasopero Sectiono 34o ofo theo Acto ofo 1894.o Eveno theo Hon'bleo SCo haso furthero clarifiedo thato onceo theo paymento ofo compensationo haso beeno offered/tenderedounderoSectiono31(1),otheoacquiringoauthorityocannoto beopenalizedoforonon-paymentoasotheoamountohasoremainounpaidodueotoo refusalotooacceptobyotheolandowner.oTooclarifyoitofurther,otheoHon'bleo SCohasofurtheroobservedothatoifoaolandownerohasofiledotheoreferenceoforo higherocompensationoheocannotoclaimothatoheowasonotopaidotheoamount.o (parao224oofotheojudgment)o o WhileoreadingotheoprovisootooSectionobeopartoofoSectiono24(2)oofotheo Actoofo2013,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtohasoclarifiedothatoinocase,otheo offeroforopaymentohasobeenomadeobutonotodeposited,oliabilityotoopayo amountoalongowithointerestosubsistoandoifonotodepositedoforomajorityoofo holdingsoforofiveoyearsooromore,ocompensationounderotheoActoofo2013o hasotoobeopaidotootheolandownersoasoonotheodateoofonotificationoforolando acquisitionounderoSectiono4oofotheoActoofo1894.oRegardingotheodeposit,o itohasobeenoclarifiedoinoparao242oofotheojudgmentothatoforotheohighero compensationotoofollow,otheomoneyoshouldonotohaveobeenodepositedo withotheoLandoAcquisitionoCollectorooroinotheotreasuryooroinotheoCourto withorespectotoomajorityoofolandoholdings,omeaningotherebyoifoitowaso depositedo ino anyo ofo theo threeo modeso witho respecto too majorityo ofo CWP No. 896 of 2018 16

holdings,otheohigherocompensationowillonotofollow,obutointerestoundero Sectiono34oofotheoActoofo1894owouldobeotheoconsequence.o

(f)oAsoregardsotheomodeoofotakingopossession,otheoHon'bleoSupremeo Courto hado clarifiedo thato drawingo ofo inquesto report/o memorandumo wouldomeanothatophysicalopossessionohasobeenotaken.oTheolawowitho regardotoovestingoofolandohasoonceoagainobeoreiteratedotooholdothato onceotheopossessionohasobeenotakenounderoSectiono16oofotheoActoofo 1894,otheolandovestoinotheoStateoandothereocannotobeoanyodivestingooro lapsing.o(parao244,o245oando363(7)oofotheojudgment.o

(g)oWhileocomputingotheogapoperiodoofofiveoyearsobetweenotheodateoofo awardo ando commencemento ofo theo Acto ofo 2013,o anyo interimo ordero subsistingo iso too beo excludedo whicho meanso thato aftero excludingo theo interimoorder,otheopre-requisiteogapoperiodoofo5oyearsoisonotothere,otheo provisionsoofoSectiono24(2)ocannotobeoinvoked.o(parao363(4)oofotheo judgment)oo

(h)oTheoHon'bleoCourtohasofurtheroclarifiedothatoifotheoacquisitionoofo lando hado earliero beeno challengedo ando theo acquisitiono waso upheld,o whichomeansotheoproceedingostoodoconcluded,otheoumbrellaoprotectiono ofoSectiono24(2)oofotheoActoofo2013ocannotobeoinvokeoasoitodoesonoto reviveo staleo ando timeo barredo claims.o (Parao 359o ando 363(9)o ofo theo judgment)oo

(i)oInoparao337,otheoHon'bleoCourtohasomadeoitoclearothatotheoprovisiono ofoSectiono24(2)oofotheoActoofo2013oisomeantotoobeoinvokedobyotheo beneficiarieso i.e.o landownerso whoo wereo recordedo soo ato theo timeo ofo issuanceo ofo notificationo undero Sectiono 4o ofo theo Acto ofo 1894.o Anyo subsequentopurchaser,oPOAoholderoorootherwise,ocannotoinvokeotheo provisionsoofoSectiono24(2)oofotheoActoofo2013."o o

19.k oooooooooooTestingotheofactualomatrixoofotheocaseoagainstotheotouchstoneoofo theoprinciplesolaidodownobyotheoApexoCourt,oitotranspiresothatopossessionoofo theolandoclaimedoinotheopetitionowasotakenobyorecordingoRapatoNo.o20odatedo

05.09.2005.oTheoApexoCourtoinoIndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo(supra)ohaso categoricallyo heldo thato theo recordingo ofo panchnamao iso theo valido modeo ofo takingopossessionoofotheolandoandoamountsotootakingoofophysicalopossessiono ofotheoland.oOnceotheopossessionoofotheolandoisotaken,oitovestsoinotheoStateofreeo fromoalloencumbrancesoandoanyopersonowhooretainsotheopossessionoofotheo landothereafteroisoaotrespasser.oTheoreferenceoinothisoregardoisomadeotootheo followingoparagraphsofromotheojudgment:-oo o CWP No. 896 of 2018 17

"…InoreoIssueo4o:oModeoofotakingopossessionounderotheo1894oActo o

246.oSectiono16oofotheo1894oActoprovidedothatopossessionoofolandomayo beo takeno byo theo Stateo Governmento aftero passingo ofo ano awardo ando thereupono lando vesto freeo fromo allo encumbranceso ino theo Stateo Government.oSimilaroareotheoprovisionsomadeoinotheocaseoofourgencyo inoSectiono17(1).oTheowordo"possession"ohasobeenousedoinotheo1894o Act,o whereaso ino Sectiono 24(2)o ofo theo 2013o Act,o theo expressiono "physicalo possession"o iso used.o Ito iso submittedo thato drawingo ofopanchnamaoforotakingooverotheopossessionoisonotoenoughowhenotheo actualophysicalopossessionoremainedowithotheolandowneroandoSectiono 24(2)o requireso actualo physicalo possessiono too beo taken,o noto theo possessionoinoanyootheroform.oWhenotheoStateohasoacquiredotheolando andoawardohasobeenopassed,olandovestsoinotheoStateoGovernmentofreeo fromoalloencumbrances.oTheoactoofovestingoofotheolandoinotheoStateoiso withopossession,oanyopersonoretainingotheopossession,othereafter,ohaso toobeotreatedoasotrespasseroandohasonoorightotoopossessotheolandowhicho vestsoinotheoStateofreeofromoalloencumbrances.o o

247.oTheo questiono whicho ariseso whethero thereo iso anyo differenceo betweeno takingo possessiono undero theo 1894o Acto ando theo expressiono "physicalo possession"o usedo ino Sectiono 24(2).o Aso ao mattero ofo fact,o whatowasocontemplatedounderotheo1894oAct,obyotakingotheopossessiono meanto onlyo physicalo possessiono ofo theo land.o Takingo overo theo possessiono undero theo 2013o Acto alwayso amountedo too takingo overo physicalo possessiono ofo theo land.o Wheno theo Stateo Governmento acquiresolandoandodrawsoupoaomemorandumoofotakingopossession,o thatoamountsotootakingotheophysicalopossessionoofotheoland.oOnotheo largeo chunko ofo propertyo oro otherwiseo whicho iso acquired,o theo Governmentoisonotosupposedotooputosomeootheropersonoorotheopoliceo forceoinopossessionotooretainoitoandostartocultivatingoitotillotheolandoiso usedo byo ito foro theo purposeo foro whicho ito haso beeno acquired.o Theo Governmentoisonotosupposedotoostartoresidingoorotoophysicallyooccupyo itoonceopossessionohasobeenotakenobyodrawingotheoinquestoproceedingso foroobtainingopossessionothereof.oThereafter,oifoanyofurtheroretainingo ofo lando oro anyo re-entryo iso madeo ono theo lando oro someoneo startso cultivationoonotheoopenolandoorostartsoresidingoinotheoouthouse,oetc.oiso deemedotoobeotheotrespasseroonolandowhichoisoinopossessionoofotheo State.oTheopossessionoofotrespasseroalwaysoinuresoforotheobenefitoofo theorealoownerothatoisotheoStateoGovernmentoinotheocase.oo o

20.k ooooooooooooooAso againsto theo claimo ofo theo petitionerso thato theyo haveo constructedohousesoonotheolandoinoquestion,oitohasocomeoonorecordothatotheo landowasolyingovacantoatotheotimeoofoinitiationoofoacquisitionoproceedingso withoonlyoboundaryowalloinoexistenceouptootheoleveloofoDPC.oTheosaidofacto hasonotobeenonegated/ocontestedobyotheopetitionersoasonooreplicationohasobeeno CWP No. 896 of 2018 18

filed by them despite the reply was filed way back on 02.08.2022. The aforesaid fact goes on to show inequitable conduct on part of the petitioners, as despite having lost challenge to the acquisition proceedings, they not only trespassed the acquired land but also raised unauthorized construction on the land. This fact is sufficient to disentitle the petitioners from any relief from this Court. Not only this, the earlier petition filed by the petitioners laying challenge to acquisition proceedings bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 16783 of 2005 was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2008 after recording that the writ petition was filed after the announcement of award on 05.09.2005 and taking of possession of the land, therefore, petition itself was not maintainable. Once the Court has recorded the finding of possession having been taken, the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the land would not hold any substance. Visualizing such like situations only, the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlaloandootherso (!upra)ohas held that lapsing cannot be claimed by such landowners who had challenged the acquisition proceedings and their claims were negatived. It is only available to those land owners, in respect of which the acquisition proceedings were pending on the date of coming into effect the Act of 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2014. It has been clarified that Section 24 contemplates pending proceedings and not the concluding one. After making the detailed discussions and placing reliance on the previous judicial pronouncements, the Apex Court has made it clear that Section 24(2) cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases as the same cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. Para 362 is extracted herein below: CWP No. 896 of 2018 19

o 35.672.o Aeo areo ofo theo consideredo opiniono thato 0ectiono 2:o cannotobeousedotooreviveodeadoandostaleoclaimsoandoconcludedocases.o ,heyocannotobeoin/uiredointoowithinotheopurviewoofotiectiono2:oofotheo 2! 6o &ct.o ,heo provisionso ofo 0ectiono 2:o doo noto invalidateo theo jud$mentsoandoordersoofotheoCourt,owhereori$htsoandoclaimsohaveobeeno losto ando ne$atived.o ,hereo iso noo revivalo ofo theo barredo claimso byo operationoofolaw.o,hus,ostaleoandodeadoclaimsocannotobeopermittedotoo beocanvassedoonotheoprete+toofoenactmentoofotiectiono2:.oInoe+ceptionalo cases,owhenoinofact,otheopaymentohasonotobeenomade,obutopossessiono hasobeenotaken,otheoremedyoliesoelsewhereoifotheocaseoisonotocoveredobyo theo proviso.o Itoiso theo Courtotoo considero itoindependentlyonoto undero 0ectiono2:;2<oofotheo2! 6o&ct54o o The case at hand squarely falls in the category of dead and stale claims as the earlier challenge to the acquisition proceedings was negatived especially on the ground that the possession of the land stands duly taken. Thus, the petitioners are disentitled to any benefit under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 on this ground only.

¶21With respect to the status of compensation, there are categorical pleadings in the reply that the amount of compensation for the entire awarded land was made available to all the landowners. In the case at hand, even though there was no requirement in law to announce additional award for paying the compensation in terms of the Act of 2013, yet the State Government in its wisdom took a decision which is so recorded in the direction issued by this Court in order dated 26.05.2015 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8052 of 2009, to announce an additional award by making the assessment of compensation, thereby applying the provisions of determination of compensation of the Act of 2013 i.e. Section 26 to 30 of the Act. This appears to have happened owing to the perplexity prevailing as regards the interpretation of the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 because as stated before us, the actual payment made to the land owner on the date of coming into effect of 2013 Act, was approximately 31.11% and CWP No. 896 of 2018 20

thus, to save the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose, the Government announced the additional award which in any eventuality will relate back to the original award having been announced on 05.09.2005, as the law contemplates drawn of only one award which had been validly done in the case in hand in the year 2005. Seeing the same from the perspective of interpretation made by the IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo(supra). the State was not under any obligation to announce the additional award but it having done so with the apparent intent to save the acquisition and the same being not an issue before us, we do not want to deliberate any further as regards this aspect except to say that this step of the State Government conclusively indicates about the essentiality of the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose, for which, it was sought to be acquired.

¶22It is the stand of the State that the amount due to the petitioners is available for disbursement and the petitioners are at liberty to receive the same, this shows that the compensation amount was duly tendered, and the obligation of the State to pay the compensation stands duly discharged. In view of the exposition in Indoreo )evelopmento &uthorityo ;supra<, the obligation of the State to pay the compensation is discharged if the amount of compensation is tendered which has been interpreted to mean that the amount was made available to the land owners as observed in Para-205, which is reproduced here in below:-

o15.2!>.o,heowordo3paid4oinotiectiono6 ; <otootheolandownero cannotoincludeoinoitsoambitotheoe+pressionoCdepositedCoinoCourt.o )eposito cannoto beo saido too beo paymento madeo too landowners.o )epositoisoonobein$opreventedofromopayment.o)o,ever.oino*aseo thereoisoaotenderoofotheoamountothatoisotoomeanoamountoiso madeoavaila-leotootheolando,nerothato,ouldo-eoaodis*har(eoofo theoo-li(ationotooma2eotheopaymentoandoinothatoeventosu*hoao CWP No. 896 of 2018 21

persono cannoto beo penalisedo foro theo defaulto ino makingo theo payment.oInodefaultotoodepositoinoCourt,otheoliabilityoisotoomakeo theo paymento ofo interesto undero Sectiono 34o ofo Acto ofo 1894.o Sectionso 32o ando 33o (whicho hado beeno reliedo upono byo theo landowners'ocounselotoosayothatovaluableorightsoinohere,oinotheo eventoofodepositowithoCourt,othusomakingodepositounderoSectiono 31o mandatory)o provideo foro investingo amountso ino theo Governmentosecurities,ooroseekingoalternativeolands,oinolieuoofo compensation,oetc.oSuchodeposits,ocannotofetchohigherointeresto thanothe15operocentocontemplatedounderoSectiono34,owhichoiso pariomateriaotooSectiono80oofoActoofo2013.oSectiono34oisopario materiaotooSectiono80oofoActoofo2013oinowhichoalsootheosimilaro rateoofointerestohasobeenospecified.oEvenoifotheoamountoisonoto depositedoinoReferenceoCourtonorowithotheotreasuryoasoagainsto theonameoofotheopersonointerestedowhooisoentitledotooreceiveoit,oifo Collectoro haso beeno preventedo too makeo theo paymento dueo too exigencieso providedo ino Sectiono 31(2),o interesto too beo paid.o However,oinocaseotheodepositoisomadeowithoutotenderingoitotoo theopersonointerested,otheoliabilityotoopayotheointerestoundero Sectiono 34,o shallo continue.o Eveno assumingo deposito ino theo Referenceo Courto iso takeno too beo mandatory,o ino thato caseo tooo interesto haso too followo aso specifiedo ino Sectiono 34.o However,o acquisitionoproceedingocannotolapseodueotoonon-deposit….'o o o oooooooooAsofaroasotheorelianceoonoAnnexureoP-9oisoconcerned,oitowouldo haveonoobearingoinoviewoofotheofactothatoitowasomerelyoanointer-departmentalo communicationo too sendo theo mano powero foro disbursingo compensation.o Ito wouldo ino noo mannero implyo thato theo compensationo waso noto tenderedo ando depositedowithoLandoAcquisitionoCollector.oo

23.k ooooooooooThus,o weo holdo thato theo Stateo haso dischargedo itso obligationo towardsomakingotheocompensationoforotheolandoacquired.oTheocontentionoofo theopetitionersothatonoocompensationoamountohasobeenoreceivedobyothemoiso meritlessoandothus,oisoherebyorejected.oAsoaoconsequence,osecondocontingencyo foroclaimingotheolapsingoofoacquisitionoproceedingsoisoalsoonotoavailableotoo CWP No. 896 of 2018 22

24.k oooooooooTheo Apexo Courto ino Indoreo Developmento Authorityo v.o Manoharlalo (supra)o haso clearlyo observedo thato foro deemedo lapsingo ofo acquisitionoproceedingsounderoSectiono24o(2)oofotheoActoofo2013,obothotheo conditionsoi.e.,opaymentoofocompensationoandotakingoofopossessionomustonoto beo fulfilledo i.e.,o ifo eithero ofo theo conditiono iso fulfilled,o theo lapsingo cannoto happen.oTheoApexoCourtohasoobservedothatowordo"or"ooccurringoinoSectiono 24o(2)oofotheoActoofo2013omustobeoreadoaso"and/nor".oRelevantoparasofromo theojudgmentoareoreproducedohereoinobelow:-oo o '…100.oInothisoCourt'soconsideredoview,oasoregardsotheo collationo ofo theo wordso usedo ino Sectiono 24(2),o twoo negativeo conditionsohaveobeenoprescribed.oThus,oevenoifooneoconditionoiso satisfied,othereoisonoolapse,oandothisologicallyoflowsofromotheoActo ofo1894oreadowithotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono24oofotheoActoofo 2013.o Anyo othero interpretationo wouldo entailo illogicalo results.o Thato apart,o ifo theo ruleo ofo interpretationo witho respecto too twoo negativeoconditionsoqualifiedobyo"or"oisoused,otheno"or"oshouldo beoreadoaso"nor"ooro"and".o xxxxo o o xxxxo o o xxxxo o o xxxxo

102.o Ino M/s.o Ranchhoddaso Atmaramo ando Anr.o v.o Theo UnionoofoIndiaoandoOrs.77,oaoConstitutionoBenchoofothisoCourto observedo thato ifo thereo areo twoo negativeo conditions,o theo expressiono"or"ohasotoobeoreadoasoconjunctiveoandoconditionsoofo bothotheoclausesomustobeofulfilled.oItowasoobserved:o "(13)o Ito iso clearothato ifotheo wordsoformoanoaffirmativeo sentence,othenotheoconditionoofooneoofotheoclausesoonlyoneedobeo fulfilled.oInosuchoaocase,o"or"oreallyomeanso"either"o"or."oInotheo Shortero Oxfordo Dictionaryo oneo ofo theo meaningso ofo theo wordo "or"oisogivenoaso"Aoparticleoco-ordinatingotwoo(oromore)owords,o phrasesooroclausesobetweenowhichothereoisoanoalternative."oItoiso alsoo thereo stated,o "Theo alternativeo expressedo byo "or"o iso emphasisedobyoprefixingotheofirstomemberooroaddingoafterotheo last,otheoassociatedoadv.oEITHER."oSo,oevenowithouto"either,"o "or"o aloneo createso ano alternative.o If,o therefore,o theo sentenceo beforeousoisoanoaffirmativeoone,othenoweogetotwooalternatives,o anyo oneo ofo whicho mayo beo choseno withouto theo othero beingo consideredoatoall.oInosuchoaocaseoitomustobeoheldothatoaopenaltyo exceedingoRs.o1,000ocanobeoimposed.o CWP No. 896 of 2018 23

; :<oIf,ohowever,otheosentenceoisoaone$ativeoone,othenotheo positiono becomeso different.o ,heo wordo CorCo betweeno theo twoo clauseso wouldo theno spreado theo ne$ativeo influenceo overo theo clauseofollowin$oit.o,hisoruleoofo$rammaroisonotoinodispute.oIno suchoaocaseotheoconditionsoofobothotheoclausesomustobeofulfilledo andotheoresultowouldobeothatotheopenaltyothatocanobeoimposedo canoneveroe+ceedoRs.o ,!!!.2 ; ><o ,heo /uestiono theno reallyo comeso too this8o Iso theo sentenceobeforeousoaone$ativeooroanoaffirmativeooneEoItoseemsotoo usothatotheosentenceoisoanoaffirmativeosentence.o,heosubstanceoofo theosentenceoisothatoaocertainopersonoshallobeoliableotooaopenalty.o ,hato iso ao positiveo concept.o ,heo sentenceo iso thereforeo noto ne$ativeoinoitsoimport.4o;emphasisosupplied< o 0hus.o foro lapseo ofo a*+uisitiono pro*eedin(so initiatedo underotheooldola,.oundero!e*tiono21(2)oifo-othostepsohaveonoto -eeno ta2en.o i.e..o neithero physi*alo possessiono iso ta2en.o noro *ompensationo iso paid.o theo lando a*+uisitiono pro*eedin(so lapse45o

¶25Since the possession of the acquired land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered, we hereby hold that none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, therefore, said provision cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. FIN!IN"So NoISSUEoIIo

¶26It is settled position of law that the party initiating the lis cannot travel beyond the pleadings which itself is controlled and governed by the relief claimed by drawing the prayer clause and thus, the field to play will be confined within the four corners of the pleadings made and the relief prayed for. Even if a party pleads and alleges numerous lapses, however, does not pray for a consequential relief or confines the prayer at the time when lis is set in motion, it cannot change the course of the petition by raising additional pleas qua which silence was maintained all throughout. CWP No. 896 of 2018 24

A perusal of the head note of the instant writ petition would reveal that the petitioners had approached this Court thereby praying for quashing of the acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Even the law points framed for consideration were confined to the aspect of applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 alone. Even the grounds pleaded in the petition were limited to the aspect of fulfillment of the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in &uneoMuni*ipaloCorporationoandootherso$s.o)ara2oChandoMisrio Malo !olan2io ando others.o Civilo Appealo No.o ''o ofo 20"1 and in 6harato 7umaro$s.o!tateoofo)aryana.oCiviloAppealoNo.o"#'"oofo20"1. Not only this, even at the time of issuance of notice of motion as also observed aforesaid, the plea raised was limited to the non-payment of compensation and non taking of the possession of the land. At no stage does the petitioners amended the writ petition or sought to raise any other plea even that of nullity of the award before this Court and for almost 5 years the only stance maintained by the petitioners was with respect to their claim regarding lapsing of acquisition proceedings. It is only after becoming conscious about the fate of petition pursuant to exposition of law by the 5 judges Constitutional Bench in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo $s.o Manoharlalo (supra) and realizing that the ship on which petitioners were sailing for last 5 years is going to sink, attempts are being made by making additions, rendering support to the sinking ship. However, contrary to the expectations of the petitioners, we are certain that no additional support can help them to sail through the fate of instant petition as the ship has already sunk. Once the petitioners have not raised any plea other than claiming lapsing of CWP No. 896 of 2018 25

acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 either in the writ petition or at the time of issuance of notice of motion, they are estopped from raising any such plea at the time of hearing of the final arguments. FIN!IN"So NoISSUEoIII$%o

¶27Though we have held that no additional pleas can be entertained at this stage, yet we deem it appropriate to deal with the contention set up by the petitioners that the award is nullity due to non compliance of provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length in this regard and are in agreement with the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that plea sought to be set up by the petitioners runs antitheses to scheme of the Act of 1894. The acquisition proceedings (other than for Company) are carried out under Part-II of the Act of 1894 which commences from Section 4 providing therein the procedure of publication of preliminary notification and culminates with Section 17 which provides for the procedure to be undertaken in case the land is to be acquired in cases of urgency. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the issuance of notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 respectively and after undertaking all the procedures prescribed in the Act, the acquisition proceedings are finalized only with the announcement of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894. Requirements of a valid award are twofold i.e., it shall be made with the previous approval of the appropriate Government as provided in Sub Section 1 of Section 11 and further, it shall be announced within a period of 2 years from the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 as envisaged in Section 11-A of Act of 1894. Pursuant to the announcement of award, Section 16 authorizes the CWP No. 896 of 2018 26

Collector to take possession of the land whereafter, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Till this stage of announcement of award and taking possession of the acquired land, the legislature has not put any obligation on the collector to pay the compensation amount either at the time of announcement of award or taking possession of the acquired land. It is only in the case of acquisition proceedings undertaken by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 that it is mandatory to tender payment of 80% of compensation for land being acquired and pay it to the person interested unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Section 31 (2) of Act of 1894.

¶28The payment of compensation amount is provided in Part V of the Act of 1894. It commences with Section 31, which provides that on making an award under Section 11, the collector shall tender payment of compensation to the interested persons entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Sub Section (2) of Section 31. Section 31 is extracted herein below for the ready reference:- 36 .o-aymentoofocompensationoorodepositoofosameoinoCourt.oFoo ; <o 8no ma2in(o ano a,ardo undero !e*tiono "".o theo Collectoro shallotenderopaymentoofotheocompensationoawardedobyohimotoo theopersonsointerestedoentitledotheretooaccordin$otootheoawardo andoshallopayoitotoothemounlessopreventedobyosomeooneooromoreo ofotheocontin$enciesomentionedoinotheone+tosub-0ection.oo o ;2<oIfotheyoshallonotoconsentotooreceiveoit,ooroifothereobeonoo persono competento too alienateo theo land,o oro ifo thereo beo anyo disputeoasotootheotitleotooreceiveotheocompensationooroasotootheo apportionmentoofoit,otheoCollectoroshallodepositotheoamountoofo theo compensationo ino theo Courto too whicho ao referenceo undero 0ectiono "owouldobeosubmitted8oo CWP No. 896 of 2018 27

o Providedothatoanyopersonoadmittedotoobeointerestedomayo receiveosuchopaymentounderoprotestoasotootheosufficiencyoofotheo amount:oo o Providedo alsoo thato noo persono whoo haso receivedo theo amountootherwiseothanounderoprotestoshallobeoentitledotoomakeo anyoapplicationounderoSectiono18:oProvidedoalsoothatonothingo hereinocontainedoshalloaffectotheoliabilityoofoanyoperson,owhoo mayo receiveo theo wholeo oro anyo parto ofo anyo compensationo awardedounderothisoAct,otoopayotheosameotootheopersonolawfullyo entitledothereto.oo o

(3)oNotwithstandingoanythingoinothisoSectionotheoCollectoromay,o withotheosanctionoofotheo[appropriateoGovernment]oinsteadoofo awardingoaomoneyocompensationoinorespectoofoanyoland,omakeo anyoarrangementowithoaopersonohavingoaolimitedointerestoino sucholand,oeitherobyotheograntoofootherolandsoinoexchange,otheo remissionoofoland-revenueoonootherolandsoheldounderotheosameo title,ooroinosuchootherowayoasomayobeoequitableohavingoregardo tootheointerestsoofotheopartiesoconcerned.oo o

(4)o Nothingo ino theo lasto foregoingo sub-Sectiono shallo beo construedotoointerfereowithoorolimitotheopoweroofotheoCollectoro tooenterointooanyoarrangementowithoanyopersonointerestedoino theolandoandocompetentotoocontractoinorespectothereof."oo o

29.k ooooooooooTheoveryoopeningolineoofotheoaforesaidoprovisionoi.e.o'onomakingo ano awardo undero Sectiono 11'o indicateso thato theo stageo ofo paymento ofo compensationocomesoonlyoafteroawardounderoSectiono11oisoannounced.oItoiso aftero theo announcemento ofo awardo thato Sectiono 31(1)o requireso tendero ando payment,owhenoamountoisomadeoavailableotootheolandoownersoandoinocaseo Stateoisopreventedofromomakingosuchopaymentoowingotooanyoofotheothreeo exigenciesocontemplatedoinoSuboSectiono(2)oofoSectiono31,otheoamountohasotoo beodepositedoinotheoCourt.oFailureotoodoosooonotheopartoofotheoStateowilloresulto inoswingingointoomotionotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono34oofotheoActoofo1894o whichoentailsopaymentoofointerestoowingotootheodelayobutoinonooeventuality,o willoresultointoolapsingoofotheoawardohavingobeenoannouncedovalidlyoundero Sectiono11oofotheoActoofo1894.oMucholessotooclaimotheoawardotoobeoaonullity,o asobeingosoughtotoobeoprojectedobyotheocounseloforotheopetitionerowhichohaso CWP No. 896 of 2018 28

noolegalobasisoandoisocompletelyo misconceived.oTheoviewotakenobyousoiso findingosupportofromotheoConstitutionoBenchojudgmentoofotheoApexoCourtoino IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo(supra)owhereinotheopleaoraisedobyotheolando ownero claimingo lapsingo ofo awardo ono accounto ofo nonpaymento ofo compensationoandoitsononodepositoinotheoreferenceoCourtounderoSectiono31o stoodoconclusivelyorejected.oRelevantoextractoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedo hereinobelow:-o o '….117.oPaymentoofocompensationounderotheo1894oActoisoprovidedo forobyoSectiono31oofotheoAct,owhichoisotoobeoafteropassingoofotheoawardo underoSectiono11.oTheoexception,oisoinocaseoofourgencyounderoSectiono 17,oisowhereoitohasotoobeotenderedobeforeotakingopossession.oOnceoano awardohasobeenopassed,otheoCollectoroisoboundotootenderotheopaymentoofo compensationo too theo personso interestedo entitledo too it,o aso foundo ino theo awardoandoshallopayoitotoothemounlesso"prevented"obyotheocontingencieso mentionedoinosub-Sectiono(2)oofoSectiono31.oSectiono31(3)ocontainsoaonono obstanteoclauseowhichoauthorisesotheoCollectorowithotheosanctionoofotheo appropriateoGovernment,oinotheointerestoofotheomajority,obyotheograntoofo otherolandsoinoexchange,otheoremissionoofolandorevenueoonootherolandsooro inosuchootherowayoasomayobeoequitable.o o 118.oSectiono 31(1)o enactso thato theo Collectoro haso too tendero paymentoofotheocompensationoawardedobyohimotootheopersonsointerestedo entitledotheretooaccordingotootheoawardoandoshallopayosuchoamountotooao personointerestedoinotheoland,ounlessoheo(theoCollector)oisopreventedofromo doingoso,oforoanyoofotheothreeocontingenciesoprovidedobyosub-Sectiono(2).o Sectiono31(2)oprovidesoforodepositoofocompensationoinoCourtoinocaseotheo Stateoisopreventedofromomakingopaymentoinotheoeventoof:o

(i)orefusalotooreceiveoit;o

(ii)oifothereobeonoopersonocompetentotooalienateotheoland;o

(iii)o ifo thereo iso anyo disputeo aso too theo titleo too receiveo theo compensation;ooooo ooro

(iv)oifothereoisodisputeoasotootheoapportionment.o ooooooooooooInosuchoexigencies,otheoCollectoroshallodepositotheoamountoofotheo compensationoinotheoCourtotoowhichoaoreferenceounderoSectiono18owouldo beosubmitted.o o 119.oSectiono 34o dealso witho ao situationo whereo anyo ofo theo obligationso undero Sectiono 31o iso noto fulfilledo i.e.o wheno theo amounto ofo compensationoisonotopaidoorodepositedoonoorobeforeotakingopossessionoofo theo land,o theo Collectoro shallo payo theo amounto awardedo witho interesto thereono@o9%op.a.ofromotheotimeoofosootakingopossessionountiloitoshallo haveobeenosoopaidoorodeposited;oandoafterooneoyearofromotheodateoono whicho possessiono iso taken,o interesto payableo shallo beo @o 15%o p.a.o Theo schemeo ofo theo 1894o Acto clearlyo makeso ito outo thato wheno theo awardo iso passedounderoSectiono11,othereafteropossessionoisotakenoasoprovidedoundero Sectiono16,olandovestsoinotheoStateoGovernment.oUnderoSectiono12(2),oao noticeoofotheoawardohasotoobeoissuedobyotheoCollector.oTakingopossessiono iso noto dependento upono payment.o Paymento haso too beo tenderedo undero Sectiono31ounlessotheoCollectoroiso"preventedofromomakingopayment",oaso providedounderoSectiono31(2).oInocaseoofofailureounderoSectiono31(1)ooro CWP No. 896 of 2018 29

31(3),oalsooCollectoroisonotoprecludedofromomakingopayment,obutoitocarrieso interestounderoSectiono34o@o9%oforotheofirstoyearofromotheodateoitooughtotoo haveobeenopaidoorodepositedoandothereaftero@o15%.oThus,oonceolandohaso beenovestedoinotheoStateounderoSectiono16,oinocaseoofofailureotoopayotheo compensationo undero Sectiono 31(1)o too deposito undero Sectiono 31(2),o compensationo haso too beo paido alongo witho interest,o ando dueo too non-complianceoofoSectiono31,othereoisonoolapseoofoacquisition.oTheosameo spiritohasobeenocarriedoforwardoinotheo2013oActobyoprovidingoinoSectiono 24(2).oOnceopossessionohasobeenotakenothoughotheopaymentohasonotobeeno made,otheocompensationohasotoobeopaidoalongowithointerestoasoenvisagedo underoSectiono34,oandoinoaocase,opaymentohasobeenomade,opossessionohaso notobeenotaken,othereoisonoolapseounderoSectiono24(2).oInoaocaseowhereo possessionohasobeenotakenounderotheo1894oActoasoprovidedobyoSectiono16o oro 17(1)o theo lando vestso absolutelyo ino theo State,o freeo fromo allo encumbrances,oifocompensationoisonotopaid,othereoisonoodivestingothereo willobeonoolapseoasocompensationocarriesointeresto@o9%ooro@o15%oaso envisagedounderoSectiono34oofotheo1894oAct.oTheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)o makeso someo wholesomeo provisiono ino caseo theo amounto haso noto beeno depositedowithorespectotoomajorityoofolandholdings,oinosuchoanoevent,onoto onlyo thoseo personso buto allo theo beneficiaries,o thougho foro minorityo ofo holdingo compensationo haso beeno paid,o shallo beo entitledo too highero compensationoinoaccordanceowithotheoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.oTheo expressiono usedo iso "allo beneficiarieso specifiedo ino theo notificationo foro acquisitionounderoSectiono4oofotheosaidoLandoAcquisitionoAct"oi.e.otheo 1894oAct,omeansothatotheopersonsowhooareotoobeopaidohigherocompensationo areo thoseo whoo haveo beeno recordedo aso beneficiarieso aso ono theo dateo ofo notificationounderoSectiono4.oTheoprovisoogivesoeffectoto,oandofurthersotheo principleothatounderotheo1894oAct,otheopurchasesomadeoafteroissuanceoofo notificationo undero Sectiono 4o areo void.o Aso such,o theo benefito ofo highero compensationounderotheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oisointendedotoobeogiveno tootheobeneficiariesomentionedoinotheonotificationounderoSectiono4oofotheo 1894oAct.o o 120.oItoisoapparentofromotheo1894oActothatotheopaymentoofo compensationoisodealtowithoinoPartoV,owhereasoacquisitionoisodealtowitho ino Parto II.o Paymento ofo compensationo iso noto madeo preconditiono foro takingo possessiono undero Sectiono 16o oro undero Sectiono 31o reado witho Sectiono34.oPossessionocanobeotakenobeforeotenderingotheoamountoexcepto inotheocaseoofourgency,oandodeposito(ofotheoamount)ohasotoofollowoinocaseo theo Collectoro iso preventedo fromo makingo paymento ino exigencieso aso providedo ino Sectiono 31(3).o Whato followso iso thato ino theo evento ofo noto fulfillingotheoobligationotoopayoorotoodepositounderoSectionso31(1)oando 31(2),o theo 1894o Acto dido noto provideo foro lapseo ofo lando acquisitiono proceedings,o ando onlyo increasedo interesto followso witho paymento ofo compensation.o o

30.k oooooooooooInoviewoofotheoabove,oitoisocrystaloclearothatotheopaymentoofo compensationo(eitherobyowayoofotender,opaymentotootheolandoowneroorodepositoo ino theo referenceo Court)o iso ano evento whicho followso theo announcemento ofo award.oThus,oanyodelayoonotheopartoofotheoStateotoodischargeotheoobligationo towardsopaymentoofocompensationoinoeitheroofotheoformopermittedounderolaw,o cannotoaffectotheovalidityoofotheoawardohavingobeenoannouncedoinoaccordanceo CWP No. 896 of 2018 30

with law. If the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted (which otherwise stands rejected) that would mean putting the clock back which is not permitted in law. In the case at hand, all throughout, the petitioners have maintained their challenge on the touch stone of deeming lapsing provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, however, having confronted with the exposition of law in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo (supra),o they have suddenly changed their course and sought to plead the "nullityoofoaward4. The act and conduct goes a long way to show their malicious intent to keep the litigation alive so as to continue defeating the very public purpose, for which, the land was acquired 18 years back. We are at pain to notice that the golden era witnessed by the Courts in this Country, when the litigant used to feel proud to speak not only the truth but the complete truth, come what may be the consequence, seems to have lost its track as now the litigants can go to any extent to secure a favourable order by making all sort of concealment and misrepresentations. The case at hand is one such case wherein the land owner in the wake of keeping the lis pending, is trying to raise an argument which is totally unheard in law and rather fails on the plain reading of the provisions of the governing statute as well as the interpretation made by the Supreme Court of India. Now the time has come wherein these kind of litigants are to be dealt with stern hands for keeping the stream of justice pollution free and thus, while deprecating the act and conduct of the petitioners but refraining ourselves to impose the exemplary cost, we reject the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that since the amount was neither paid nor deposited in the reference Court under Section 31, the award drawn under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 is a nullity.

CWP No. 896 of 2018 31

¶31In the wake of the conspectus of what all has been discussed above, the issues framed are being answered in the following terms:- IssueoI – There can be no declaration as regards to the lapsing of acquisition proceedings as none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 are fulfilled as the possession of the land stands duly taken by recording Rapat no. 20 dated 05.09.2005 and the compensation amount was duly tendered and made available to the landowners. Further, the petitioners have already lost in earlier round of litigation wherein specific finding as regards the possession having been taken was recorded and same had attained finality, therefore, concluded proceedings cannot be allowed to re-open under the garb of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that there can be no declaration as to lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 in view of the exposition of law in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.o Manoharlaloandootherso(!upra). Issueo2%oooooA plea which was neither prayed for nor contended at the timeowhen lis was set in motion cannot be allowed to be contended at the time of final hearing as that would amount to allowing the party to travel beyond the pleadings and scope of the petition, which is clearly impermissible in law. o o Issueo3o&oValidity of award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894, consequential action of taking possession of the land under Section 16 of Act of 1894 and vesting of same in the State Government is not dependent on compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894 which deals with Payment of compensation. CWP No. 896 of 2018 32

In the scheme of the Act, the effect and consequence of non-compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 is provided in Section 34 of Act of 1894 i.e., payment of interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum. In no eventuality, does non-compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 would render the award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894 a nullity or affect the vesting of land in the State Government in any manner.

¶32Before parting with the judgment, there is yet another aspect which requires consideration that is 3essentiality" of the land in question. As stated in para No. 8 of the reply, the land of the petitioners effect the site of 18 mtr road, 12 mtr road, 6 mtr road and 8 mtr road along with green belt and police station area as per the development plan. This shows that the land is very much viable for the public purpose for which it was acquired, thus, even considering the pre-eminence of the public purpose; present petition deserves to be dismissed as a litigant cannot be allowed to stall the development process for years altogether.

¶33As a sequel of the discussions made herein above, the instant petition is hereby dismissed and the pending applications, if any, shall also meet same fate. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE

(ARUN PALLI)

21.07.2023 JUDGE ravinder

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No