Decided on February 09,2015

Joura Begam Appellant
STATE OF M.P Respondents


- (1.)ON Writ Appeal No.21/2015 arising out of order dated 19/1/2015 in W.P. No.2746/2014 the Division Bench vide its order dated 2/2/2015 permitted the appellants/petitioners to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise the issue of acquisition proceedings having not been completed, by way of review petition.
(2.)THE present applicants claim to have purchased the suit land by sale deed dated 14/12/2011. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 14/5/2008. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 30/5/2008 and award was passed on 30/3/2009. Total amount of award was to the tune of Rs.18,14,693/ -. The amount was deposited as per Annexure R(2)/4 and thereafter compensation was paid to various farmers, details whereof are on record as Annexure R(2)/5. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sewdha bypass road and the work has been executed, details whereof are elaborately discussed in the order passed by the Writ Court and the same are referable to the detailed return filed by the respondents; para 4 and 5 of the counter -affidavit.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for applicants by referring to provisions under Section 24 (2) of 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.30 of 2013)' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013') submits that as the erstwhile owners had not received compensation, therefore, acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The aforesaid argument suffers from basic fallacy for the reason the award itself was passed on 30/3/2009 i.e. less than five years from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2013, as the Act had come into force of w.e.f. 1st January, 2014. As such, the provision as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 with reference to lapse of proceedings has no application.
That apart, after conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, deposit and payment of compensation, work has already been executed with the administrative sanction. At this stage, the claim of applicants/petitioners; the subsequent purchasers vide sale deed dated 14/12/2011 i.e. much after passing of the award; that the proceedings of acquisition had lapsed is misconceived, moreso, there was no challenge to the award at any stage by any person much less erstwhile owner and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submission is more of frustration than of substance. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his submissions advanced in reference to Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 has relied upon following judgments:

1. Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, 2014 3 SCC 183.

Facts of this case are distinguishable in nature as in the said case the award (dated 31/1/1998) was passed prior to five years from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2013 and, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to Section 24(2) had proceeded to examine the matter in the context of payment of compensation and delivery of possession.

2. Union of India and others vs. Shiv Raj and others, 2014 6 SCC 564.

3. Bimla Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 6 SCC 583


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.