-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant judgment, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur upheld the acquisition proceedings, ruling out any lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
Legal Point of the Judgement: The core legal issue revolved around the application of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, concerning whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 lapsed due to non-compliance with the provisions of taking possession and compensation payment.
Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, sought de-notification or release of the acquired land, contending that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The notifications in question were issued in 2006 and 2007 under the 1894 Act.
Court’s Assessment: The Court, referring to the ‘Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others’ case, observed that the acquisition proceedings do not lapse if the acquiring authority has complied with the conditions of possession and compensation as stipulated. In this case, the respondent authority had taken possession and made the compensation amount available for disbursal, thus fulfilling the criteria under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court also noted the significant delay and laches in filing the petition, as the notification for acquisition was issued way back in 2006, and the petition was filed much later.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the notifications and consequent award. The bench stated, “When both the conditions (possession and compensation) are evidently complied with, the writ relief relating to the acquisition proceedings and the consequent award being declared lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the ‘Act of 2013’ is but obviously rejected.”
Date of Decision: 15.02.2024.
Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others,
