(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
(1)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6686/2005 (Vidhya Sagar v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (2)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6924/2005 (Ajay Kumar & Ors.v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (3)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6925/2005 (Vidhya Sagar & Anr.v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (4)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7254/2005 (Surendra Kumar Chawla & Ors.v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (5)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7255/2005 (Lalchand & Ors.v.State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 19th May, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr.J.P.Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Siddharth Joshi ].Mr.Khet Singh ].for the petitioneRs.Mr.Dilip Mulchandani ].Dr.
P.S.Bhati, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the State of Rajasthan.
Mr.Dron Kaushik, for UIT, Sriganganagar....BY THE COURT : REPORTABLE These petitions for writ were preferred in the year 2005 to challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated under a notification dated 23.8.2004 as per (2) provisions of Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894').In some of the writ petitions, while issuing post admission notices to the respondents, this Court as an interim measure restrained the respondent State from taking over physical possession over the land under acquisition.
The State Government, however, did not choose to take over possession of the land from any of the petitioneRs.who are the land owners of the land subjected to acquisition.
During pendency of the petition for writ the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award as per Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on 25.2.2006 and the same was approved by the Government of Rajasthan on 25.6.2007.
The amount of compensation was said to be offered to the petitioneRs.but they refused to take the same, thus, the amount of compensation was deposited in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division).Sriganganagar.
An application in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6686/2005 has now been preferred with assertion that in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land (3) Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013').the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 have been lapsed and no further action with regard to acquisition can now be taken by the respondents.
A declaration is sought to the effect that the respondents now cannot proceed against the petitioners in pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894.
The application has been contested by the respondents by way of filing reply to the same.
According to the respondents the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the notification dated 23.8.2004, a report as per Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was sent to the State Government on 21.4.2005 and a declaration as per Section 6 came to be published on 30.5.2005.
Notices as per Section 9(3) of the Act of 1894 were also issued to the persons interested and after considering their objections award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.2.2006, however, prior to passing of the award the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court.
In two petitions for writ, interim direction was given for not dispossessing the land owner concerned from the land in (4) question.
In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the amount of compensation was not paid to the petitioners immediately after acceptance of the award but at a subsequent stage the same was offered and on being not accepted, the same was deposited in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division).Sriganganagar.
According to the respondents, looking to the lis-pendent the possession of the land was not taken and for the same reason the compensation was also not paid, thus, the protection given under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is not available in the instant matteRs.During the couRs.of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that compensation awarded was offered and deposited before the court concerned as per provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1894, either after filing of the present application or at least after January 1st, 2014.
The fact aforesaid has not been disputed by counsel for the respondents.
Precisely, the question that requires determination in the instant application is that whether the protection as given under sub-section(2) of Section 24 of (5) the Act of 2013 is available to the petitioners who are having possession over the land in question because of an interim order passed by this Court and further that the awarded compensation has already been deposited before the court competent court as per provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1894.
To get the issue more clear, it shall be appropriate to mention here that the Act of 2013 came into force from January 1, 2014, repealing the Act of 1894.
Beside the other objects, an important object of the Act of 2013 is to provide just and fair compensation to the effected persons whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are effected by such acquisition.
To achieve this object the legislature has also provided a deeming provision to get the stale land acquisition proceedings lapsed, if the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid even after making the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894.
The sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 meeting with such eventualities, reads as under:- “(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section(1).in case of land acquisition (6) proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
.
A reading of the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 discloses that it is having retrospective application for the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 in certain eventualities and on its operation the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 shall stand lapsed where an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made five years or more earlier than (7) to 1st January, 2014, the day on which the Act of 2013 came into force, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid.
A liberty is also given to the State to initiate the fresh land acquisition proceedings for such lapsed process of acquisition, but that should be in accordance with the Act of 2013.
The provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 ensures fair compensation to the land owners who faced agony of the process of land acquisition for several yeaRs.but retained possession over the land.
This provision nowhere refers the reasons for keeping possession of the land even after passing of the award.
Sub-section(2) of Section 24 nowhere excludes its application for the land that remained under possession of the land owner due to litigation and the interim orders passed therein.
The requirement for operating the provision of sub-section(2) of Section 24 is very specific and clear and i.e.passing of the award five years earlier from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 and further non-taking of physical possession of the land under acquisition, or non-payment of the compensation awarded.
If the (8) legislature had any intent to exclude the application of sub-section(2) of Section 24, then that should have been mentioned in the clear terMs.as that is provided under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894.
The Section 11-A of the Act of 1894 provides a definite period for making an award and the explanation given below the proviso to Section 11- A states that in computing the period prescribed for making an award shall exclude the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the publication of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
No such exclusion is given under Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
The language used in sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is unambiguous and does not lead to any absurdity, anamoly, contradiction or injustice.
As a matter of fact its plain reading and absolute application fulfil the object of the Act of 2013, i.e.of giving just and fair compensation to the land owneRs.In such circumstances, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered by giving ordinary and plain meaning to the words and phrases used in the statute.
I do not find any reason for deviating from the natural and ordinary meaning of the (9) statute by adding something to it, which has not been introduced by the legislature.
It is quite pertinent to note that the draft rules for the Act of 2013 were put to in public domain for discussions on being notified on 14.10.2013.
The Rule 23 of the working draft was relating to retrospective application of Section 24 and as per proposed sub-rule(3).where possession of the land under acquisition was not taken due to the acquisition process challenged in a court of law, then the period spent under litigation was to be counted for the purpose of determining the period of five yeaRs.necessary to have operation of sub-section(2).The Rules were notified in gazette on 31.12.2013.
The sub- rule(3) aforesaid of the working draft was not included in the gazette notification.
This non-inclusion clearly indicates that the Rule making authority was also not interested to take into count the period that spent under litigation.
For abundant caution, it is made clear that the rules referred above have yet not been came into force but reference of those has been given only to indicate the intention of the rule framing authority.
(10) The other important aspect of the matter is that in the case in hand, the respondents at their own did not choose to pay the awarded compensation.
The interim order was passed by this Court quite prior to passing of the award.
The Collector passed the award during pendency of the litigation and that was accepted by the State Government in the year 2007, but no effort was made to pay the awarded compensation for a period of more than five yeaRs.The compensation was deposited with the Civil Court after filing of the present application.
This course, if the land owners were not accepting the compensation, would have been adopted soon after the refusal made.
The non-adherence of the mode given under Section 31 of the Act of 1894 for a period of more than six years clearly indicates that no compensation was paid to the land owners for a period of more than five years from the date of award.
In the instant matteRs.all the eventualities needed for application of sub-section(2) of Section 24 are existing.
The award was passed in the year 2006 i.e.five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and physical possession of the land has yet not been taken.
The compensation awarded too was not offered or paid (11) even upto 1.1.2014.
This factual position clearly indicates that sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act of 1894 operates in the instant matters and by application of that the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 are to be treated lapsed.
The upshot of the discussions made is acceptance of the application, accordingly the same is allowed.
It is declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the notification dated 23.8.2004 stands lapsed in view of the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
In light of the declaration made above, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
No order to cost.
[GOVIND MATHUR].,J.
Kkm/PS