THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusSUSHILA & ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 573                            573


               THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               A
                                  v.
                         SUSHILA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 2022)
                        JANUARY 13, 2023                                 B
         [M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by          C
the respondent no.1-original writ petitioners, being subsequent
purchasers seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings
pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2)
since neither physical possession of the land was taken nor they
were paid compensation – Allowed by the High Court –                     D
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken
over by the acquiring body and handed over to the beneficiary,
any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be
encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the
benefit of the provisions of s. 24(2) – It would be giving a premium
                                                                         E
to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention
of the legislature – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to
challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition – Thus, the
writ petition by the respondents being subsequent purchasers ought
not to have been entertained by the High Court – Order passed by
the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act,          F
1894.

      Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
      Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil
      Appeal No. 3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority               G
      Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
      3073 of 2022 - referred to.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9205
of 2022.
                                                                         H
                                 573
574             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2017 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014.

           B. K. Satiza, AAG, Ms. S. Harini, Dr. Monika Gusain, Avi
      Dhankhar, Advs. for the Appellants.
B           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            M. R. SHAH, J.

            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
C     Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.15720 of 2014 by which the High
      Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
      acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
      under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
      in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
D     (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the State of Haryana has
      preferred the present appeal.

            2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High
      Court it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein -
      original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land in
E     question has not been paid to them and even the possession of the lands
      in question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the
      Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed
      to have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor the
      compensation for the acquired land has been paid.
F
             2.1 Before the High Court a written statement was filed by the
      Land Acquisition Officer. It was specifically disputed that the possession
      of the acquired land was not taken over. It was also the specific case on
      behalf of the appellants herein that as such the original writ petitioners
      being the subsequent purchasers after the notification under Section 4
G
      dated 26.08.2003 there was no question of any compensation to be paid
      to them. It was submitted that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers
      had no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings more particularly
      to pray for lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant part of the
      written statement read as under:
H
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. SUSHILA & ORS.                               575
               [M. R. SHAH, J.]

 “1. That the petitioners have no locus standi to file the                  A
 present petition before this Hon’ble court because the petitioners
 were not owners of the acquired land at the time of the notification
 under section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6 dated
 10.08.2004. The gram Panchayat of village Nathupur was owner
 of the land bearing khasra no. 155 (1-7-0), 156/1(0-3-8), 156/             B
 3(1-18-17). The petitioners were tenants in the land in dispute
 as per the revenue record. The petitioners become owners of
 the land in dispute vide order dated 24.05.2006 passed by the
 Hon’ble High court in Regular Second Appeal no. 1578 of 1990
 and Civil Misc no. 3568-C of 2006. Immediately thereafter the              C
 petitioners no’s 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 sold their land in dispute
 to the other person i.e. Dharmpal son of Paras Ram vide sale
 deed no’s. 8637 dated 4.7.2006 and mutation no. 2218 dated
 09.08.2006 was also sanctioned in favour of vendee. The sale of
 the land by the petitioners was well before the announcement of
                                                                            D
 the Award no. 8 dated 04.08.2006. So the petitioners are not
 entitled to file the present petition against the acquisition proceeding
 after disbursement of compensation and the present petition is
 liable to be dismissed with the cost on this ground.

                             xxx xxx xxx                                    E
 3. That the total compensation amount of the awarded land is
 Rs.76,32,858/-. The compensation of the acquired land was not
 paid to the petitioners because the petitioners no. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
 and 18 were not owners of the acquired land on the date of passing
 the Award and other land owners did not give their consent to              F
 receive the compensation amount of the acquired land and did not
 provide any documentary proof to prove their ownership and as
 such un-disbursed amount, is lying deposited in the account of
 the LAC, and is available for payment immediately on demand of
 actual land owners on the date of passing the Award.                       G

                             xxx xxx xxx

 10. That the contents of Para no. 10 of the writ petition are admitted
 to the extent that the award of the land in dispute was announced
 on 04.08.2006. It is specifically denied that the petitioners are in       H
576      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     physical possession of the acquired land. It is submitted that
      possession of the acquired land has been handed over to the
      representative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide
      Rapat no. 702 date 04.08.2006. The petitioners are encroachers
      in the acquired land. Rest of the contents of this Para is matter
B     of record.

                                xxx xxx xxx

      14. That the contents of Para no. 14 of the writ petition are wrong
      and denied. It is specifically denied that the acquisition proceeding
C     qua the petitioners has lapsed as per the provision of section 24
      (2) of Right to fair compensation and transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. It is
      submitted that the physical possession of the acquired land has
      been handed over to the representative of HUDA on the same
D     day of the award vide Rapat no. 702 dated 04.08.2006. The
      petitioners are encroachers in the acquired land and compensation
      of the acquired land was not paid to the petitioners because they
      are not owners of the acquired land and were not entitled to the
      same. Rest of the contents of this Para is matter of record.
E                               xxx xxx xxx

      17. That the contents of Para no. 17 of the writ petition are wrong
      and denied. It is submitted that the acquisition proceeding qua the
      petitioners cannot be lapsed as per the provision of section 24 (2)
      of Right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition,
F
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, because the physical
      possession of the acquired land has been handed over to the
      representative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide Rapat
      no. 702 dated 04.08.2006. The petitioners are encroachers in
      the acquired land and compensation of the acquired land was not
G     paid to the petitioners because they are not owners of the acquired
      land. The acquisition proceedings have been carried out as per
      the demarcation given by Distt, Town Planner, Gurgaon, in
      accordance with the mandatory provisions of the L.A. Act. The
      acquisition is just as per law in the interest of public at large and
H
     THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. SUSHILA & ORS.                             577
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      not Liable to be quashed on any of the grounds mentioned by the          A
      petitioners in this Para of the writ petition. That no law points is
      involved in the writ petition which requires adjudication by this
      Hon’ble High Court. The contentions raised in sub Para (i) to (iv)
      are wrong and hence denied. The acquisition proceeding were
      carried out in accordance with Law.”                                     B
        3. From the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the specific case
on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question
was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary on 04.08.2006. It
was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the petitioners are
encroachers in the acquired land and compensation of the acquired land         C
was not paid to them because they were not co-owners at the time of
award. The aforesaid has not at all been considered by the High Court
while passing the impugned judgment and order. As the possession was
taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary,
any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be                 D
encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the
benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and pray that
as now they are in possession, may be as encroachers, they are entitled
to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It would be giving a premium
to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of the     E
legislature.

       4. Even otherwise as observed and held by this Court in the
case of Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building
vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 and Delhi
Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors,                  F
Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchasers have no
locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.

      4.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two
decisions, the writ petition at the instance of the private respondents        G
herein – original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers ought not
to have been entertained by the High Court challenging the acquisition
proceedings and/or praying for lapse of the acquisition under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances also the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
                                                                               H
578              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the present
      appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court passed in CWP No. 15720 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set
      aside. The original writ petition filed by the private respondents – original
      writ petitioners, stands dismissed accordingly.
B
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.
C     (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)




D




E




F




G




H