MAHARANA PARTAP CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-48
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 24,2014

Maharana Partap Charitable Trust Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LORD REID IN LUKE V. I.R.C. [REFERRED TO]
LORD MORRIS IN HERRINGTON V. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DAMODAR KALE AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ROSHNARA BEGUM V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
G. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY V. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
NAVINCHANDRA MAFATLAL BOMBAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY [REFERRED TO]
DAU DAYAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN BUM LIMITED VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
S R Y SIVARAM PRASAD BAHADUR RAJA SHRI V V V R K YACHENDRA KUMA RARAJA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERA BAD:INCOME TAX OFFICER NELLORE [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K S SUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
FUZLUNBI VS. K KHADER VALI [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR VS. MANGAL SAIN WADHERA [REFERRED TO]
SHENOY AND CO VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CIRCLE II BANGALORE:STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR DEY VS. TARAPADA DEY [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM MITTAL VS. ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND VS. GULAM CHISTI [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA [REFERRED TO]
YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
VANKA RADHAMANOHARI VS. VANKA VENKATA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ H JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SANGAPPA GURULINGAPPA SAJJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SPENCER AND COMPANYMPANY LIMITED VS. VISHWADARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL VS. GOVERNMENT OF T N:A HASTINGS HOPE [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
N NARASIMHAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GURSHARAN SINGH ASHWANI SACHDEVA VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE:NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. D C NANJUDAIAH [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN ALIAS KRISHAN KUMAR VS. MANOJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD GAZI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. GURDIP SINGH UBAN [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. RAM KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR VS. JAGDEESHAN [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A P VS. M R APPARAO [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. CONNANORE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DHANNALAL VS. KALAWATIBAI [REFERRED TO]
BHAIJI VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFCER THANDLA [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN VS. SITA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
JAMAL UDDIN AHMED VS. ABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
J P BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PANDIAN CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADURAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KALIKA KUER alias KALIKA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH NATH KHANNA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. ROAD ROLLERS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX RANCHI VS. SWARN REKHA COKES and COALS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SWEDISH MATCH AB VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KHULLAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
U P POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. AYODHYA PRASAD MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. DAYANAND [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B PREMANAND VS. MOHAN KOIKAL [REFERRED TO]
FIDA HUSSAIN VS. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
MUNILAL VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BALAK RAM GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALAK RAM GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B R GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDO SWISS TIME LIMITED VS. UMRAO [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS AND SOUTHERN MAHRATTA RY CO LTD VS. BEZWADA MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. SURENDRA NATH LOOMBA [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. HARI RAM [REFERRED TO]
POPAT BAHIRU GOVARDHANE VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
SARAH MATHEW VS. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES BY ITS DIRECTOR K.M.CHERIAN [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
K. CHINNATHAMBI GOUNDER AND ANR. VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HARIJAN WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In CWP No. 6860 of 2007, the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'), is the subject matter of opinion of this Bench consequent to an order dated 10.7.2014 passed by the Division Bench, of which one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) was a member so as to examine whether the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Raj and others, 2014 6 SCC 564, would be applicable to the cases where there is an interim order passed by the Court. In other words, whether the period of stay granted by a Court is required to be excluded for determining the period of five years for lapsing of proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Old Act'). The said questions arise out of the fact that the present writ petition was filed challenging the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 21.3.2006 and 20.3.2007 of the old Act. In the writ petition, an order of stay of dispossession was granted on 8.5.2007. The said order continues till today.
(2.)Subsequently, another question "Whether the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act is admissible even to those land owners, whose writ petitions have already been dismissed, and who by virtue of the interim stay, did not permit the State to take possession of their land and declined the offer of compensation by the Collector" was also referred for the opinion of the Larger Bench in CWP No. 12066 of 2014 - (Mahinder Yadav v. State of Haryana,) vide order dated 11.7.2014. The said writ petition arises out a fact that in the earlier writ petition (CWP No. 13277 of 1999), the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 8.3.1989 and 7.3.1990 under the old Act, were the subject matter of challenge. Subsequently, Award No. 11 dated 18.3.1991 and Award No. 11 dated 5.3.1992 were announced. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as regards acquisition is concerned on 3.10.2013, but with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. In the present writ petition, the petitioners claims that in view of Section 24 of the Act, the acquisition proceedings would be deemed to be lapsed as the possession of the land was not taken within five years prior to the commencement of the Act.
(3.)The issues raised are of considerable importance and we had the benefit of the assistance of Senior Counsels, on behalf of the land owners as also the Advocates General, Punjab and Haryana. We have heard all the Counsels who wanted to argue the matter.
;


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