Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 627 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-02-23

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Arun Bhansali, J. - 23.2.2017. - Applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (''the Right to Fair Compensation Act'') with averments that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated pursuant to notification dated 17.12.2005 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act''), declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 24.12.2006 and awards were passed on 11.05.2007/23.05.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions and in all the writ petitions, except S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 501/2007, the respondents were restrained from taking possession of the property in dispute. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in terms of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, the proceedings have lapsed, inasmuch as, the possession of the land in dispute has not been taken though the awards were passed on 11.05.2007/23.05.2007 i.e. before five years of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and, therefore, the acquisition be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the compensation pursuant to the awards has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioners cannot take advantage of the fact that on account of passing of the interim orders by this Court, the possession of the land could not be taken from the petitioners. However, it is admitted that in fact the possession of the land in dispute was not taken by the respondents. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the fact that dispossession remain stayed on account of the orders passed by this Court does not water down the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act as has been laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.: (2015) 3 SCC 353 and Karnail Kaur & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.: 2015(2) WlC(SC) Civil 409 and therefore, the applications be allowed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.: 2015(2) WlC(SC) Civil 409 and therefore, the applications be allowed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. As noticed hereinbefore, though the compensation has been deposited by the respondents, the possession of the land has not been taken by the respondents despite passing of the awards on 11.05.2007/23.05.2007. 7. So far as the effect of interim order passed by this Court and the issue whether the period is required to be excluded or not, is no more res integra as Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) laid down as under:- "11. From a plain reading of Section 24 of the 2013 Act it is clear that Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act 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. In the same Act, proviso to Section 19(7) in the context of limitation for publication of declaration under Section 19(1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the market value of the land in the context of delay between preliminary notification under Section 11 and the date of the award, specifically provide that the period or periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing the relevant period. In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in view of law on the subject elaborately discussed by this Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of T.N. 12. Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in view of law on the subject elaborately discussed by this Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of T.N. 12. Even in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the Legislature had brought about amendment in Section 6 through an Amendment Act of 1984 to add Explanation 1 for the purpose of excluding the period when the proceeding suffered stay by an order of the court, in the context of limitation provided for publishing the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. To a similar effect was the Explanation to Section 11A which was added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Clearly the Legislature has, in its wisdom, made the period of five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act absolute and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings on account of any order of stay by a court. The plain wordings used by the Legislature are clear and do not create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the court is not required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation." 8. The said judgment has been followed in the case of Karnail Kaur (supra). 9. In view of the above, in terms of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents vide Notifications dated 17.12.2005 qua the lands in question stand lapsed. Consequently, the applications and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners to the above extent are allowed. 10. It goes without saying that in terms of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, if the Government so chooses, it can initiate proceedings of the land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act.