Jai Singh Etc v. State of Haryana and Ors

Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 1 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No. 2303(2023 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2023

JaioSinghoandoanother …..Petitioners

versus

StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE

Present : Mr. S.P.Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

RAVIoSHANKERoJHA,oCHIEFoJUSTICEo oCMoNo.o !"!oofo " ! The instant petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide the order dated 23.01.2023. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners' seeking restoration of the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the writ petition is hereby restored. Main case is taken up for hearing on board today itself and the arguments of the respective parties are heard with respect to the main petition. MAINo#ETITI$Noo

¶1The petitioners have approached this Court by instituting instant writ petition praying for quashing of the notifications dated

18.10.2002 and 08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1894") Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 2 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

respectively followed by the award dated 05.09.2005,o inter-alia, on the ground that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 2013") as neither the petitioners have received the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector nor it was deposited in the court and possession of the acquired land is still with the petitioners.

¶2The petitioner No.1 has stated himself to be owner in possession of 3 Marlas of land i.e. 3/6 share out of 6 marla land comprised in Khata No. 14 min, Rect & Killa No. 19//4/1/1/1 (0(5), 3/29/1 (0(1), total (0(6) situated within the revenue estate of Village Sehjanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat whereas petitioner No.2 has stated himself to be owner in thpossession i.e. 1/4 share (6 marla) out of the land comprised in Khewat No. 119/83, Rectt and Kllla No. 13//9/2/1 (0(5 G.M.Rasta), 9//2/3 (0(10 G.M.Rasta), 10//1/2(0(8), total 1 kanal 3 marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Sehjanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

¶3As regards the prayer of seeking lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the said prayer is squarely covered against them in terms of the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indoreo Developmento Authorityov.oManoharlaloandootherso(2020)o8oSCCo129, however, he asserts that there is another plea which he would like to press as regards the "nullityo ofoaward" on account of non(payment of compensation amount.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even though the award was announced on 05.09.2005, no compensation amount was given to the land owners upto 12.07.2007 because the award statement Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 3 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

and kabja vasool was not complete which shows that the Collector was not in a position to offer amount to the land owners even after two years from the date of award. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a letter dated

12.07.2007 written by Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P(5. Based upon this, learned counsel has contended that the award itself was illegal,onon-est in the eyes of law and thus, was a nullity as it was announced without tendering of compensation amount required in accordance with Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per him the contention of the earlier award being a nullity stands fortified from the fact that the State Government had announced revised award on 05.06.2015 thereby assessing compensation in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013. In sum and substance, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once award itself was a nullity on account of non(compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have validly culminated in accordance with law.

¶5Even though the petitioners have sought to raise challenge to award dated 05.09.2005 by terming it to be a nullity, it is pertinent to mention that for all these years, the petitioners did not even plead so and the petition simply got adjourned awaiting the decision of the Apex court as regards the applicability of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 as a result of which the instant petition remained pending in this Court awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of India as regards the interpretation and applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 which came to be decided by the Five Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indoreo Developmento Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 4 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

Authorityo s.o Manoharlalo ando otherso (2020)o 8o SCCo 129 and it was thereafter the instant petition was taken up for hearing.

¶6Controverting the pleas raised by the petitioners, a short reply of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak came to be filed after the pronouncement of the judgment in IndoreoDevelopmento Authorityo s.oManoharlalo(supra). Placing reliance on the same Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has contended that the land claimed in the petition along with other lands was acquired by the State of Haryana through Department of Urban Estates vide notification dated 18.10.2002 and 08.09.2003 issued under Sections 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; followed by the award dated 05.09.2005 for the public purpose namely, development and utilization of land as residential, institutional and commercial Sector – 16, Sonepat. Neither any objections were filed under Section 5(A of Act of 1894 nor there was any construction existing on the land claimed in the petition as it was lying completely vacant. After the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings with announcement of award dated 05.09.2005, the possession of the land in question was taken by recording rapat rojnamcha No. 20 dated 05.09.2005 which implies that due possession was taken and the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The compensation amount qua the land in question alongwith other acquired land was duly tendered at the time of announcement of award and was made available to the landowners.

¶7Learned State counsel further argued that validity of award is to be seen only against the touchstone of Section 11 and 11(A of Act of 1894 which primarily would include two aspects i.e., award is announced within 2 years from the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of Act Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 5 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

of 1894 and the award was announced with approval of the State Government. Validity of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 is not dependent on Section 31 of Act of 1894 which postulates about the manner in which the compensation amount, pursuant to announcement of award is to be paid or deposited in the court. He places reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlalo (Supra) to contend that stage of Section 31 i.e., payment of compensation under Act of 1894 comes only after the passing of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894, except in the case of invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of Act of 1894, where 80% of estimated compensation amount has to be tendered and paid before taking possession of the land.

¶8As per Section 31(1), the Collector has to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and shall pay such amount unless he is prevented from doing so, for any of three contingencies provided under sub(Section (2) of Section 31 in which case he has to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court. The three contingencies are (i) refusal to receive the amount of compensation, (ii) if there be no person competent to alienate the land; (iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or if there is dispute as to the apportionment. The effect of non(compliance of Section 31 is envisaged in Section 34 of Act of 1894. It deals with a situation where any of the obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e., when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the time of taking possession until it is paid or deposited and after one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest payable shall be @ 15% per Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 6 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

annum. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act of 1894, when the award is announced under Section 11, thereafter the possession is taken under Section 16, the land vests in the State. At this stage, announcement of the award and taking of possession is not dependent on the payment of compensation; therefore, the question of compliance of Section 31 of the Act of 1894 does not arise at all. The only consequence of non(compliance of Section 31 is provided under Section 34 of Act of 1894 which can by no stretch of imagination, would relate back to the validity of the award announced under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, he prays to reject the plea of the petitioner as regards the award being nullity as misconceived and clearly against the scheme of the Act of 1894 itself.

¶9As regards the aspect of compensation, Mr. Mittal submits that pursuant to the announcement of the award on 05.09.2005, the compensation amount was duly tendered and was made available to the landowners. He has further stated that earlier the award was announced on

05.09.2005 @ Rs. 12,50,000/( per acre. However, since there was a spurt of litigations seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, only 31.11% of amount of compensation was disbursed among the landowners and as per the law prevalent at that time, the word 'paid' used in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 was interpreted to mean actual payment or deposit in the Court; in order to save the acquisition proceedings from lapsing, the decision was taken by the State Government to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions relating to assessment of compensation of Act of 2013, qua which the directions were also issued by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2014 passed in CWP No. 8052 of 2009. Accordingly, the additional award was announced Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 7 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

on 05.06.2015 for the entire acquired land @ Rs. 414/( per square yard as fixed on 03.06.2015 based upon the assessment made by the Court of Additional District Judge in reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including 100% solatium multiplier factor and 12% increase in the market value for the actual date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 till the assessment of compensation as per the Act of 2013. The total amount of the compensation of the additional award i.e., Rs. 1,78,92,06,315/( was also tendered out of which Rs. 57,25,46,020/( has been disbursed to the land owners. The petitioners are at liberty to receive the compensation amount. No fault can be attributed to the State agencies for non(payment of compensation as they had fulfilled their obligation to pay the compensation amount after tendering the compensation amount. He submits that this aspect is also covered by the decision of Indoreo DevelopmentoAuthorityo(Supra) in which it has been held that the "tender" of compensation is sufficient discharge of the obligation to pay compensation and actual payment or deposit in the court is not required.

¶10In view of the aforestated facts and placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo s.o Manoharlaloandootherso(supra), learned Additional Advocate General has contended that none of the grounds for seeking lapsing of acquisition proceedings as required under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, as the possession of the land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered, besides the land owners are being paid amount assessed in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013 even though the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was announced way back on

05.09.2005. For declaring the acquisition proceedings to have been lapsed, it Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 8 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

is incumbent upon the landowner to show that both the contingencies prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 i.e. "non(payment of compensation" and "non(taking of possession" co(exists. If one of the contingencies remains unfulfilled, there can be no declaration as regards the lapsing of acquisition proceedings. Since in the case at hand the possession of the land in question stands taken and the compensation also stands tendered, there can be no declaration as to lapsing of acquisition proceedings as none of the contingencies as prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 is fulfilled.

¶11We have heard the arguments made by the respective parties at length. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that the matter is covered against the petitioners as regards the plea of lapsing under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 in view of the judgment in Indoreo DevelopmentoAuthorityov.oManoharlaloandootherso(supra), however, since replies were filed long back and the Learned counsel appearing for the State has asserted all claims, we deem it appropriate to deal with issue of lapsing as well besides considering the issue as to whether non(compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894 would render an award nullity.

¶12The interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 had remained subject matter of controversy for quite a while, until it was settled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of IndoreoDevelopmento Authorityo (Supra). The principles of interpreting the provision were summarized in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in the manner as follows: "…366.oIno viewo ofo theo aforesaido discussion,o weo answero theo questionsoasounder:o

366.1.oUnderotheo rovisionsoofo!ectiono"#$1%$a%oinocaseo theo awardo iso noto &adeo aso ono 1-1-"'1#,o theo dateo ofo CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

commencemento ofo theo 2013o Act,o thereo iso noo lapseo ofo proceedings.oCompensationohasotoobeodeterminedoundero theoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.o o

366.2.oIno caseo theo awardo haso beeno passedo withino theo windowoperiodoofofiveoyearsoexcludingotheoperiodocoveredo byoanointerimoorderoofotheocourt,othenoproceedingsoshallo continueoasoprovidedounderoSectiono24(1)(b)oofotheo2013o Actounderotheo1894oActoasoifoitohasonotobeenorepealed.oo o

366.3.oTheo wordo "or"o usedo ino Sectiono 24(2)o betweeno possessionoandocompensationohasotoobeoreadoaso"nor"ooro aso "and".o Theo deemedo lapseo ofo lando acquisitiono proceedingsounderoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActotakeso placeowhereodueotooinactionoofoauthoritiesoforofiveoyearso oro moreo prioro too commencemento ofo theo saido Act,o theo possessionoofolandohasonotobeenotakenonorocompensationo hasobeenopaid.oInootherowords,oinocaseopossessionohaso beenotaken,ocompensationohasonotobeenopaidothenothereoiso noo lapse.o Similarly,o ifo compensationo haso beeno paid,o possessionohasonotobeenotakenothenothereoisonoolapse.oo o

366.4.oTheoexpressiono"paid"oinotheomainopartoofoSectiono 24(2)o ofo theo 2013o Acto doeso noto includeo ao deposito ofo compensationoinocourt.oTheoconsequenceoofonon-deposito isoprovidedoinotheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oinocaseoitohaso noto beeno depositedo witho respecto too majorityo ofo landholdingso theno allo beneficiarieso (landowners)o aso ono theodateoofonotificationoforolandoacquisitionounderoSectiono 4oofotheo1894oActoshallobeoentitledotoocompensationoino accordanceowithotheoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.oInocaseo theoobligationounderoSectiono31oofotheoLandoAcquisitiono Act,o1894ohasonotobeenofulfilled,ointerestounderoSectiono34o ofo theo saido Acto cano beo granted.o Non-deposito ofo compensationo(inocourt)odoesonotoresultoinotheolapseoofo landoacquisitionoproceedings.oInocaseoofonon-depositowitho respectotootheomajorityoofoholdingsoforofiveoyearsooromore,o compensationounderotheo2013oActohasotoobeopaidotootheo "landowners"o aso ono theo dateo ofo notificationo foro lando acquisitionounderoSectiono4oofotheo1894oAct.oo o

366.5.oIno caseo ao persono haso beeno tenderedo theo compensationo aso providedo undero Sectiono 31(1)o ofo theo 1894oAct,oitoisonotoopenotoohimotooclaimothatoacquisitiono hasolapsedounderoSectiono24(2)odueotoonon-paymentooro non-depositoofocompensationoinocourt.oTheoobligationotoo payoisocompleteobyotenderingotheoamountounderoSectiono 31(1).o Theo landownerso whoo hado refusedo too accepto compensationo oro whoo soughto referenceo foro highero compensation,o cannoto claimo thato theo acquisitiono proceedingsohadolapsedounderoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013o CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo10 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

o

366.6.oTheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActoisotoo beotreatedoasopartoofoSectiono24(2),onotopartoofoSectiono 24(1)(b).oo o

366.7.oTheomodeoofotakingopossessionounderotheo1894oActo andoasocontemplatedounderoSectiono24(2)oisobyodrawingo ofo inquesto report/memorandum.o Onceo awardo haso beeno passedoonotakingopossessionounderoSectiono16oofotheo1894o Act,otheolandovestsoinoStateothereoisonoodivestingoprovidedo underoSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oAct,oasoonceopossessiono hasobeenotakenothereoisonoolapseounderoSectiono24(2).oo o

366.8.oTheo provisionso ofo Sectiono 24(2)o providingo foro ao deemedo lapseo ofo proceedingso areo applicableo ino caseo authoritieso haveo failedo dueo too theiro inactiono too takeo possessionoandopayocompensationoforofiveoyearsooromoreo beforeotheo2013oActocameointooforce,oinoaoproceedingoforo landoacquisitionopendingowithotheoauthorityoconcernedoaso ono1-1-2014.oTheoperiodoofosubsistenceoofointerimoorderso passedobyocourtohasotoobeoexcludedoinotheocomputationoofo fiveoyears.oo o

366.9.oSectiono24(2)oofotheo2013oActodoesonotogiveoriseotoo newocauseoofoactionotooquestionotheolegalityoofoconcludedo proceedingsoofolandoacquisition.oSectiono24oappliesotooao proceedingo pendingo ono theo dateo ofo enforcemento ofo theo 2013oActoi.e.o1-1-2014.oItodoesonotoreviveostaleoandotime-barredo claimso ando doeso noto reopeno concludedo proceedingso noro allowo landownerso too questiono theo legalityo ofo modeo ofo takingo possessiono too reopeno proceedingsooromodeoofodepositoofocompensationoinotheo treasuryoinsteadoofocourtotooinvalidateoacquisition…"o o o

13.k oooooooooooooTheosumoandosubstanceoofotheointerpretationoofoSectiono24o(2)o ofotheoActoofo2013obyotheoApexoCourtoisothatobothotheocontingenciesoprovidedo i.e.,oaboutotheophysicalopossessionoandotheopaymentoofocompensationoareotoo beofulfilled,omeaningothereby,oifoeitheroofotheoconditionsoisonotosatisfied,othereo wouldonoolapsing.oAsofaroasotheoobligationotoomakeotheopaymentoinolieuoofotheo landoacquiredoisoconcerned,oitohasobeenoclarifiedothatosuchoobligationotoopayoiso completeo byo tenderingo theo compensationo whicho wouldo meano thato theo compensationoamountowasomadeoavailableotootheolandoowneroandoifoheohaso notoacceptedotheosame,oitowillonotobeoavailableoforotheolandoownerotooclaimo Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 11 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

that the compensation has not been paid. Similarly, word "de osit" has been interpreted to mean depositing with the Land Acquisition Collector or the treasury or the reference court. Drawing of panchnama has been considered to be a valid proof of taking physical possession and once the land stands vested in the State, there is no divesting provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The Apex Court has further clarified that the period for which any interim order was in operation, will be excluded while computing the gap period of five years. Similarly, it has been clarified that Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition as it applies to only those cases wherein the proceedings were pending on the date of enforcement of Act of 2013.

¶14Testing the factual matrix of the case against the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it transpires that the possession of the land claimed in the petition was taken by recording rapat No. 20 dated

05.09.2005. The Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo(Supra) has categorically held that the recording of panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession of the land and amounts to taking of physical possession of the land. Once the possession of the land is taken, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances and any person who retains the possession of the land thereafter is a trespasser. The reference in this regard is made to the following paragraphs from the judgment:( "…InoreoIssueo#o:o8odeoofotatiin)o ossessionounderotheo1-.#o(cto o "#6.o!ectiono16oofotheo1-.#o(cto rovidedothato ossessionoofolando&ayo +eo tatieno +yo theo !tateo 9overn&ento aftero assin)o ofo ano awardo ando thereu ono lando vesto freeo fro&o allo encu&+ranceso ino theo !tateo 9overn&ent.o!i&ilaroareotheo rovisionso&adeoinotheocaseoofour)encyo ino!ectiono15$1%.o/heowordo" ossession"ohaso+eenousedoinotheo1-.#o (ct,o whereaso ino !ectiono "#$"%o ofo theo "'13o (ct,o theo e, ressiono CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo12 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

"physicalo possession"o iso used.o Ito iso submittedo thato drawingo ofopanchnamaoforotakingooverotheopossessionoisonotoenoughowhenotheo actualophysicalopossessionoremainedowithotheolandowneroandoSectiono 24(2)o requireso actualo physicalo possessiono too beo taken,o noto theo possessionoinoanyootheroform.oWhenotheoStateohasoacquiredotheolando andoawardohasobeenopassed,olandovestsoinotheoStateoGovernmentofreeo fromoalloencumbrances.oTheoactoofovestingoofotheolandoinotheoStateoiso withopossession,oanyopersonoretainingotheopossession,othereafter,ohaso toobeotreatedoasotrespasseroandohasonoorightotoopossessotheolandowhicho vestsoinotheoStateofreeofromoalloencumbrances.o o o 247.oTheoquestionowhichoarisesowhetherothereoisoanyodifferenceo betweeno takingo possessiono undero theo 1894o Acto ando theo expressiono "physicalo possession"o usedo ino Sectiono 24(2).o Aso ao mattero ofo fact,o whatowasocontemplatedounderotheo1894oAct,obyotakingotheopossessiono meanto onlyo physicalo possessiono ofo theo land.o Takingo overo theo possessiono undero theo 2013o Acto alwayso amountedo too takingo overo physicalo possessiono ofo theo land.o Wheno theo Stateo Governmento acquiresolandoandodrawsoupoaomemorandumoofotakingopossession,o thatoamountsotootakingotheophysicalopossessionoofotheoland.oOnotheo largeo chunko ofo propertyo oro otherwiseo whicho iso acquired,o theo Governmentoisonotosupposedotooputosomeootheropersonoorotheopoliceo forceoinopossessionotooretainoitoandostartocultivatingoitotillotheolandoiso usedo byo ito foro theo purposeo foro whicho ito haso beeno acquired.o Theo Governmentoisonotosupposedotoostartoresidingoorotoophysicallyooccupyo itoonceopossessionohasobeenotakenobyodrawingotheoinquestoproceedingso foroobtainingopossessionothereof.oThereafter,oifoanyofurtheroretainingo ofo lando oro anyo re-entryo iso madeo ono theo lando oro someoneo startso cultivationoonotheoopenolandoorostartsoresidingoinotheoouthouse,oetc.oiso deemedotoobeotheotrespasseroonolandowhichoisoinopossessionoofotheo State.oTheopossessionoofotrespasseroalwaysoinuresoforotheobenefitoofo theorealoownerothatoisotheoStateoGovernmentoinotheocase.o o

15.k oooooooooooWitho respecto too theo statuso ofo compensation,o theo amounto ofo originaloawardowasodulyotenderedoandowasomadeoavailableotootheolandowners.o Ino theo caseo ato hand,o eveno thougho thereo waso noo requiremento ino lawo too announceoadditionaloawardoforopayingotheocompensationoinotermsoofotheoActo ofo2013,oyetotheoStateoGovernmentoinoitsowisdomotookoaodecisionowhichoisosoo recordedo ino theo directiono issuedo byo thiso Courto ino orderodatedo 26.05.2015o passedoinoCiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o8052oofo2009,otooannounceoanoadditionalo awardo byo makingo theo assessmento ofo compensation,o therebyo applyingo theo provisionsoofodeterminationoofocompensationoofotheoActoofo2013oi.e.oSectiono 26otoo30oofotheoAct.oThisoappearsotoohaveohappenedoowingotootheoperplexityo Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 13 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

prevailing as regards the interpretation of the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 because as stated before us, the actual payment made to the land owner on the date of coming into effect of 2013 Act, was approximately

31.11% and thus, to save the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose, the Government announced the additional award which in any eventuality will relate back to the original award having been announced on

05.09.2005, as the law contemplates drawn of only one award which had been validly done in the case at hand in the year 2005. Seeing the same from the perspective of interpretation made by the IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo (supra)& the State was not under any obligation to announce the additional award but it having done so with the apparent intent to save the acquisition and the same being not an issue before us, we do not want to deliberate any further with regard to this aspect except to say that this step of the State Government conclusively indicates about the essentiality of the land in question so as to achieve the public purpose for which it was sought to be acquired.

¶16It is the stand of the State that the amount due to the petitioners as per additional award, is available for disbursement and the petitioners are at liberty to receive the same. This shows that the compensation amount was duly tendered and the obligation of the State to pay the compensation stands duly discharged. In view of the exposition in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo(supra)& the obligation of the State to pay the compensation is discharged if the amount of compensation is tendered which has been interpreted to mean that the amount was made available to the land owners as observed in Para 205 which is reproduced here in below:(

CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo14 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

o'….205.oTheowordo"paid"oinoSectiono31(1)otootheolandownero cannotoincludeoinoitsoambitotheoexpressiono"deposited"oinocourt.o Deposito cannoto beo saido too beo paymento madeo too landowners.o Depositoisoonobeingopreventedofromopayment.oHowever,oinocaseo thereoisoaotenderoofotheoamountothatoisotoomeanoamountoiso madeoavailableotootheolandownerothatowouldobeoaodischargeoofo theoobligationotoomakeotheopaymentoandoinothatoeventosuchoao persono cannoto beo penalisedo foro theo defaulto ino makingo theo payment.oInodefaultotoodepositoinocourt,otheoliabilityoisotoomakeo theo paymento ofo interesto undero Sectiono 34o ofo Acto ofo 1894.o Sectionso 32o ando 33o (whicho hado beeno reliedo upono byo theo landowners'ocounselotoosayothatovaluableorightsoinohere,oinotheo eventoofodepositowithocourt,othusomakingodepositounderoSectiono 31o mandatory)o provideo foro investingo amountso ino theo Governmentosecurities,ooroseekingoalternativeolands,oinolieuoofo compensation,oetc.oSuchodeposits,ocannotofetchohigherointeresto thanothe15operocentocontemplatedounderoSectiono34,owhichoiso pariomateriaotooSectiono80oofoActoofo2013.oSectiono34oisopario materiaotooSectiono80oofoActoofo2013oinowhichoalsootheosimilaro rateoofointerestohasobeenospecified.oEvenoifotheoamountoisonoto depositedoinoReferenceoCourtonorowithotheotreasuryoasoagainsto theonameoofotheopersonointerestedowhooisoentitledotooreceiveoit,oifo Collectoro haso beeno preventedo too makeo theo paymento dueo too exigencieso providedo ino Sectiono 31(2),o interesto too beo paid.o However,oinocaseotheodepositoisomadeowithoutotenderingoitotoo theopersonointerested,otheoliabilityotoopayotheointerestoundero Sectiono 34,o shallo continue.o Eveno assumingo deposito ino theo Referenceo Courto iso takeno too beo mandatory,o ino thato caseo tooo interesto haso too followo aso specifiedo ino Sectiono 34.o However,o acquisitionoproceedingocannotolapseodueotoonon-deposit….'o o

17.k oooooooooooAsofaroasotheorelianceoonoAnnexureoP-5oisoconcerned,oitowouldo haveonoobearingoinoviewoofotheofactothatoitowasomerelyoanointer-departmentalo communicationo too sendo theo mano powero foro disbursingo compensation.o Ito wouldo ino noo mannero implyo thato theo compensationo waso noto tenderedo ando depositedo witho LAC.o Ino viewo ofo theo saido fact,o secondo contingencyo foro claimingotheolapsingoofoacquisitionoproceedingsoisoalsoonotoavailableotootheo petitioners.o o CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo15 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

18.k ooooooooooTheo Apexo Courto ino Indoreo Developmento Authorityo v.o Manoharlalo (supra)o haso clearlyo observedo thato foro deemedo lapsingo ofo acquisitionoproceedingsounderoSectiono24o(2)oofotheoActoofo2013,obothotheo conditionsoi.e.,opaymentoofocompensationoandotakingoofopossessionomustonoto beofulfilledoi.e.,oifoeitheroofotheoconditionoisofulfilled,otheolapsingocannototakeo place.oTheoApexoCourtohasoobservedothatowordo"or"ooccurringoinoSectiono24o

(2)oofotheoActoofo2013omustobeoreadoaso"and/nor".oRelevantoparasofromotheo judgmentoareoreproducedohereoinobelow:-oo o '…100.oInothisoCourt'soconsideredoview,oasoregardsotheo collationo ofo theo wordso usedo ino Sectiono 24(2),o twoo negativeo conditionsohaveobeenoprescribed.oThus,oevenoifooneoconditionoiso satisfied,othereoisonoolapse,oandothisologicallyoflowsofromotheoActo ofo1894oreadowithotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono24oofotheoActoofo 2013.o Anyo othero interpretationo wouldo entailo illogicalo results.o Thato apart,o ifo theo ruleo ofo interpretationo witho respecto too twoo negativeoconditionsoqualifiedobyo"or"oisoused,otheno"or"oshouldo beoreadoaso"nor"ooro"and".o xxxxo o o xxxxo o o xxxxo o o xxxxo

102.o Ino M/s.o Ranchhoddaso Atmaramo ando Anr.o v.o Theo UnionoofoIndiaoandoOrs.77,oaoConstitutionoBenchoofothisoCourto observedo thato ifo thereo areo twoo negativeo conditions,o theo expressiono"or"ohasotoobeoreadoasoconjunctiveoandoconditionsoofo bothotheoclausesomustobeofulfilled.oItowasoobserved:o "(13)o Ito iso clearo thato ifotheo wordsoformo anoaffirmativeo sentence,othenotheoconditionoofooneoofotheoclausesoonlyoneedobeo fulfilled.oInosuchoaocase,o"or"oreallyomeanso"either"o"or."oInotheo ShorteroOxfordoDictionaryooneoofotheomeaningsoofotheowordo"or"o iso giveno aso "Ao particleo co-ordinatingo twoo (oro more)o words,o phrasesooroclausesobetweenowhichothereoisoanoalternative."oItoiso alsoo thereo stated,o "Theo alternativeo expressedo byo "or"o iso emphasisedobyoprefixingotheofirstomemberooroaddingoafterotheo last,otheoassociatedoadv.oEITHER."oSo,oevenowithouto"either,"o "or"o aloneo createso ano alternative.o If,o therefore,o theo sentenceo beforeousoisoanoaffirmativeoone,othenoweogetotwooalternatives,o anyo oneo ofo whicho mayo beo choseno withouto theo othero beingo consideredoatoall.oInosuchoaocaseoitomustobeoheldothatoaopenaltyo exceedingoRs.o1,000ocanobeoimposed.o

(14)oIf,ohowever,otheosentenceoisoaonegativeoone,othenotheo positiono becomeso different.o Theo wordo "or"o betweeno theo twoo clauseso wouldo theno spreado theo negativeo influenceo overo theo clauseofollowingoit.oThisoruleoofogrammaroisonotoinodispute.oIno Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 16 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

1suchoaocaseotheoconditionsoofo+othotheoclauseso&usto+eofulfilledo andotheoresultowouldo+eothatotheo enaltyothatocano+eoi& osedo canoneveroe,ceedo>s.o1,'''.<o $14%o /heo questiono theno reallyo co&eso too this:o Iso theo sentenceo+eforeousoaone)ativeooroanoaffir&ativeooneBoItosee&sotoo usothatotheosentenceoisoanoaffir&ativeosentence.o/heosu+stanceoofo theosentenceoisothatoaocertaino ersonoshallo+eolia+leotooao enalty.o /hato iso ao ositiveo conce t.o /heo sentenceo iso thereforeo noto ne)ativeoinoitsoi& ort."oo $e& hasisosu lied%o o )hus&o (oro lapseo o(o a"#uisitiono pro"eedin*so initiatedo underotheooldola$&ounderoSe"tiono2+(2)oi(o%othostepsohaveonoto %eeno ta,en&o i.e.&o neithero physi"alo possessiono iso ta,en&o noro "ompensationo iso paid&o theo lando a"#uisitiono pro"eedin*so lapse04o

¶19Since the possession of the acquired land stands duly taken and the compensation amount has also been tendered and also received (original amount of compensation) for majority of land holdings, we hereby hold that none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are fulfilled, therefore, said provision cannot be relied upon by the petitioners to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings.

¶20Even though the petitioners all throughout maintained a stand that the present writ petition is only limited and confined to applicability of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, yet they have now sought to raise additional plea as regards the "nullity of award" on account of non(payment of compensation. It is incomprehensible that plea sought to be raised by the petitioners runs counter to the facts of the case as the petitioners have received the original amount of compensation awarded in the year 2005 for majority of land. Once it is so, aforesaid plea of the petitioners falls flat and shows they are only making an attempt to keep litigation alive on one ground or another. It is pertinent to mention that even otherwise such plea cannot be entertained at this stage because if the petitioners were aggrieved Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 17 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

of the said fact, they should have approached this Court at the time when award was announced in 2005, whereas they are approaching in 2019 raising their claim entirely on 24(2) of Act of 2013, which is also barred by delay and laches as cause of action to claim lapsing also had arisen 5 years back on

01.01.2014. Therefore, observing from every angle, the instant petition deserves dismissal.

¶21Nonetheless, even in law the argument of the petitioners that award becomes nullity even if compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 is made, is completely misconceived and rests on faulty foundation and interpretation of scheme of Act of 1894. We are in agreement with the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that plea sought to be set up by the petitioners runs antithesis to scheme of the Act of 1894. The acquisition proceedings (other than for Company) are carried out under Part(II of the Act of 1894 which commences from Section 4 providing therein the procedure of publication of preliminary notification and culminates with Section 17 which provides for the procedure to be undertaken in case the land is to be acquired, in cases of urgency. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the issuance of notification and declaration under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act of 1894 respectively and undertaking all the procedure prescribed in the Act, the acquisition proceedings are finalized only with the announcement of award under Section 11 of Act of 1894. Requirements of a valid award are twofold i.e., it shall be made with the previous approval of the appropriate Government as provided in Sub Section 1 of Section 11 and further, it shall be announced within a period of two years from the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 as envisaged in Section 11(A of Act of Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 18 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

1894. Pursuant to the announcement of award, Section 16 authorizes the Collector to take possession of the land whereafter, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Till this stage of announcement of award and taking possession of the acquired land, the legislature has not put any obligation on the collector to pay the compensation amount either at the time of announcement of award or taking possession of the acquired land. It is only in the case of acquisition proceedings undertaken by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 that it is mandatory to tender payment of 80% of compensation for land being acquired and pay it to the person interested unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Section 31 (2) of Act of 1894.

¶22The payment of compensation amount is provided in Part V of the Act of 1894. It commences with Section 31, which provides that on making an award under Section 11, the collector shall tender payment of compensation to the interested persons entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it unless prevented by one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Sub Section (2) of Section 31. Section 31 is extracted herein below for the ready reference:( "31.oCay&entoofoco& ensationoorode ositoofosa&eoino*ourt.oDoo $1%o5noma,in*oanoa$ardounderoSe"tiono11&otheo*ollectoroshallotendero ay&ento ofo theo co& ensationo awardedo +yo hi&o too theo ersonso interestedoentitledotheretooaccordin)otootheoawardoandoshallo ayoitotoo the&o unlesso reventedo +yo so&eo oneo oro &oreo ofo theo contin)encieso &entionedoinotheone,tosu+-!ection.oo o $"%oIfotheyoshallonotoconsentotooreceiveoit,ooroifothereo+eonoo ersono co& etentotooalienateotheoland,ooroifothereo+eoanyodis uteoasotootheotitleo too receiveo theo co& ensationo oro aso too theo a ortion&ento ofo it,o theo *ollectoroshallode ositotheoa&ountoofotheoco& ensationoinotheo*ourtotoo whichoaoreferenceoundero!ectiono1-owouldo+eosu+&itted:oo o Crovidedothatoanyo ersonoad&ittedotoo+eointerestedo&ayoreceiveo sucho ay&entoundero rotestoasotootheosufficiencyoofotheoa&ount:oo Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 19 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

o Crovidedo alsoo thato noo ersono whoo haso receivedo theo a&ounto otherwiseothanoundero rotestoshallo+eoentitledotoo&atieoanyoa licationo undero!ectiono1-:oCrovidedoalsoothatonothin)ohereinocontainedoshallo affectotheolia+ilityoofoanyo erson,owhoo&ayoreceiveotheowholeooroanyo artoofoanyoco& ensationoawardedounderothiso(ct,otoo ayotheosa&eotoo theo ersonolawfullyoentitledothereto.oo o $3%o3otwithstandin)oanythin)oinothiso!ectionotheo*ollectoro&ay,owitho theosanctionoofotheoEa ro riateo9overn&entFoinsteadoofoawardin)oao &oneyoco& ensationoinores ectoofoanyoland,o&atieoanyoarran)e&ento withoao ersonohavin)oaoli&itedointerestoinosucholand,oeithero+yotheo )rantoofootherolandsoinoe,chan)e,otheore&issionoofoland-revenueoono otherolandsoheldounderotheosa&eotitle,ooroinosuchootherowayoaso&ayo+eo equita+leohavin)ore)ardotootheointerestsoofotheo artiesoconcerned.oo o $#%o3othin)oinotheolastofore)oin)osu+-!ectionoshallo+eoconstruedotoo interfereowithooroli&itotheo oweroofotheo*ollectorotooenterointooanyo arran)e&entowithoanyo ersonointerestedoinotheolandoandoco& etentotoo contractoinores ectothereof."oo

¶23The very opening line of the aforesaid provision i.e. /onoma,in*o ano a$ardo undero Se"tiono 114 indicates that the stage of payment of compensation comes only after award under Section 11 is announced. It is after the announcement of award that Section 31(1) requires tender and payment, when amount is made available to the land owners and in case State is prevented from making such payment owing to any of the three exigencies contemplated in Sub Section (2) of Section 31, the amount has to be deposited in the Court. Failure to do so on the part of the State will result into swinging into motion the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1894 which entails payment of interest owing to the delay but in no eventuality, will result into lapsing of the award having been announced validly under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Much less to the claim of the award to be a nullity, as being sought to be projected by the counsel for the petitioners, has no legal basis and is completely misconceived. The view taken by us is finding support from the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in IndoreoDevelopmentoAuthorityo(supra) wherein the plea raised by CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo20 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

theolandoownersoclaimingolapsingoofoawardoonoaccountoofonon-paymentoofo compensationoandoitsonon-depositoinotheoreferenceoCourtounderoSectiono31o stoodoconclusivelyorejected.oRelevantoextractoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedo hereinobelow:-o o '….117.oPaymentoofocompensationounderotheo1894oActoisoprovidedo forobyoSectiono31oofotheoAct,owhichoisotoobeoafteropassingoofotheoawardo underoSectiono11.oTheoexception,oisoinocaseoofourgencyounderoSectiono 17,oisowhereoitohasotoobeotenderedobeforeotakingopossession.oOnceoano awardohasobeenopassed,otheoCollectoroisoboundotootenderotheopaymentoofo compensationo too theo personso interestedo entitledo too it,o aso foundo ino theo awardoandoshallopayoitotoothemounlesso"prevented"obyotheocontingencieso mentionedoinosub-Sectiono(2)oofoSectiono31.oSectiono31(3)ocontainsoaonono obstanteoclauseowhichoauthorisesotheoCollectorowithotheosanctionoofotheo appropriateoGovernment,oinotheointerestoofotheomajority,obyotheograntoofo otherolandsoinoexchange,otheoremissionoofolandorevenueoonootherolandsooro inosuchootherowayoasomayobeoequitable.o o 118.oSectiono 31(1)o enactso thato theo Collectoro haso too tendero paymentoofotheocompensationoawardedobyohimotootheopersonsointerestedo entitledotheretooaccordingotootheoawardoandoshallopayosuchoamountotooao personointerestedoinotheoland,ounlessoheo(theoCollector)oisopreventedofromo doingoso,oforoanyoofotheothreeocontingenciesoprovidedobyosub-Sectiono(2).o Sectiono31(2)oprovidesoforodepositoofocompensationoinocourtoinocaseotheo Stateoisopreventedofromomakingopaymentoinotheoeventoof:o

(i)orefusalotooreceiveoit;o

(ii)oifothereobeonoopersonocompetentotooalienateotheoland;o

(iii)o ifo thereo iso anyo disputeo aso too theo titleo too receiveo theo compensation;ooro

(iv)oifothereoisodisputeoasotootheoapportionment.o Ino sucho exigencies,o theo Collectoro shallo deposito theo amounto ofo theo compensationoinotheocourtotoowhichoaoreferenceounderoSectiono18owouldo beosubmitted.o o 119.oSectiono 34o dealso witho ao situationo whereo anyo ofo theo obligationso undero Sectiono 31o iso noto fulfilledo i.e.o wheno theo amounto ofo compensationoisonotopaidoorodepositedoonoorobeforeotakingopossessionoofo theo land,o theo Collectoro shallo payo theo amounto awardedo witho interesto thereono@o9%op.a.ofromotheotimeoofosootakingopossessionountiloitoshallo haveobeenosoopaidoorodeposited;oandoafterooneoyearofromotheodateoono whicho possessiono isotaken,o interesto payableo shallo beo @o 15%op.a.o Theo schemeo ofo theo 1894o Acto clearlyo makeso ito outo thato wheno theo awardo iso passedounderoSectiono11,othereafteropossessionoisotakenoasoprovidedoundero Sectiono16,olandovestsoinotheoStateoGovernment.oUnderoSectiono12(2),oao noticeoofotheoawardohasotoobeoissuedobyotheoCollector.oTakingopossessionoiso notodependentouponopayment.oPaymentohasotoobeotenderedounderoSectiono 31ounlessotheoCollectoroiso"preventedofromomakingopayment",oasoprovidedo underoSectiono31(2).oInocaseoofofailureounderoSectiono31(1)ooro31(3),oalsoo Collectoroisonotoprecludedofromomakingopayment,obutoitocarriesointeresto underoSectiono34o@o9%oforotheofirstoyearofromotheodateoitooughtotoohaveo CiviloWritoPetitionoNo.o25659oofo2017ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo21 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

beenopaidoorodepositedoandothereaftero@o15%.oThus,oonceolandohasobeeno vestedo ino theo Stateo undero Sectiono 16,o ino caseo ofo failureo too payo theo compensationo undero Sectiono 31(1)o too deposito undero Sectiono 31(2),o compensationo haso too beo paido alongo witho interest,o ando dueo too non-complianceoofoSectiono31,othereoisonoolapseoofoacquisition.oTheosameo spiritohasobeenocarriedoforwardoinotheo2013oActobyoprovidingoinoSectiono 24(2).oOnceopossessionohasobeenotakenothoughotheopaymentohasonotobeeno made,otheocompensationohasotoobeopaidoalongowithointerestoasoenvisagedo underoSectiono34,oandoinoaocase,opaymentohasobeenomade,opossessionohaso notobeenotaken,othereoisonoolapseounderoSectiono24(2).oInoaocaseowhereo possessionohasobeenotakenounderotheo1894oActoasoprovidedobyoSectiono16o oro 17(1)o theo lando vestso absolutelyo ino theo State,o freeo fromo allo encumbrances,oifocompensationoisonotopaid,othereoisonoodivestingothereo willobeonoolapseoasocompensationocarriesointeresto@o9%ooro@o15%oaso envisagedounderoSectiono34oofotheo1894oAct.oTheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)o makeso someo wholesomeo provisiono ino caseo theo amounto haso noto beeno depositedowithorespectotoomajorityoofolandholdings,oinosuchoanoevent,onoto onlyo thoseo personso buto allo theo beneficiaries,o thougho foro minorityo ofo holdingo compensationo haso beeno paid,o shallo beo entitledo too highero compensationoinoaccordanceowithotheoprovisionsoofotheo2013oAct.oTheo expressiono usedo iso "allo beneficiarieso specifiedo ino theo notificationo foro acquisitionounderoSectiono4oofotheosaidoLandoAcquisitionoAct"oi.e.otheo 1894o Act,o meanso thato theo personso whoo areo too beo paido highero compensationoareothoseowhoohaveobeenorecordedoasobeneficiariesoasoono theodateoofonotificationounderoSectiono4.oTheoprovisoogivesoeffectoto,oando furthersotheoprincipleothatounderotheo1894oAct,otheopurchasesomadeoaftero issuanceoofonotificationounderoSectiono4oareovoid.oAsosuch,otheobenefitoofo higherocompensationounderotheoprovisootooSectiono24(2)oisointendedotoobeo givenotootheobeneficiariesomentionedoinotheonotificationounderoSectiono4oofo theo1894oAct.o o 120.oIto iso apparento fromo theo 1894oActo thato theo paymento ofo compensationoisodealtowithoinoPartoV,owhereasoacquisitionoisodealtowitho ino Parto II.o Paymento ofo compensationo iso noto madeo preconditiono foro takingo possessiono undero Sectiono 16o oro undero Sectiono 31o reado witho Sectiono34.oPossessionocanobeotakenobeforeotenderingotheoamountoexcepto inotheocaseoofourgency,oandodeposito(ofotheoamount)ohasotoofollowoinocaseo theo Collectoro iso preventedo fromo makingo paymento ino exigencieso aso providedo ino Sectiono 31(3).o Whato followso iso thato ino theo evento ofo noto fulfillingotheoobligationotoopayoorotoodepositounderoSectionso31(1)oando 31(2),o theo 1894o Acto dido noto provideo foro lapseo ofo lando acquisitiono proceedings,o ando onlyo increasedo interesto followso witho paymento ofo compensation.o o

24.k oooooooooooInoviewoofotheoabove,oitoisocrystaloclearothatotheopaymentoofo compensationo(eitherobyowayoofotender,opaymentotootheolandoowneroorodeposito ino theo Referenceo Court)o iso ano evento whicho followso theo announcemento ofo award.oThus,oanyodelayoonotheopartoofotheoStateotoodischargeotheoobligationo Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 22 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

towards payment of compensation in either of the form permitted under law, cannot affect the validity of the award having been announced validly under law. If the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted (which otherwise stands rejected) that would mean putting the clock back which is not permitted in law. In the case at hand, all throughout, the petitioners have maintained their challenge on the touch stone of deeming lapsing provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, however, having confronted with the exposition of law in Indore Development Authority (supra), they have suddenly changed their course and sought to plead the "nullityoofoaward".

¶25As a sequel of the aforesaid, as regards the plea of nullity of award, it is held that validity of award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894, consequential action of taking possession of the land under Section 16 of Act of 1894 and vesting of same in the State Government is not dependent on compliance of the provisions of Section 31 of Act of 1894 which deals with Payment of compensation. In the scheme of the Act, the effect and consequence of non(compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 is provided in Section 34 of Act of 1894 i.e., payment of interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum. In no eventuality, does non( compliance of Section 31 of Act of 1894 would render the award announced under Section 11 of Act of 1894 a nullity or affect the vesting of land in the State Government in any manner.

¶26As far as the plea of lapsing is concerned, no declaration as regards the lapsing of acquisition proceedings can be made as none of the conditions prescribed in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 are fulfilled since the possession of the land stands duly taken by recording Rapat no. 20 dated Civil Writ Petition No. 25659 of 2017 23 2023:PHHC:121453-DB

05.09.2005 and the compensation amount as awarded originally stands duly tendered. Even the Counsel appearing for petitioners does not dispute the fact that aspect of lapsing is covered against the petitioners in view of exposition made in Indoreo Developmento Authorityo v.o Manoharlalo ando otherso(Supra).

¶27Before parting with the judgment, there is yet another aspect which requires consideration is "essentiality" of the land in question. As stated in para No. 9 of the reply, the land of the petitioners affects the site of 24 mtr. road, 12 mtr road and 6 mtr road as per the development plan. This shows that the land is very much viable for the public purpose for which it was acquired, thus, even considering the pre(eminence of the public purpose; present petition deserves to be dismissed as a litigant cannot be allowed to stall the development process for years altogether.

¶28As a sequel of the discussions made herein above, the instant petition is hereby dismissed and the pending application, if any, shall also meet same fate. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE

(ARUN PALLI)

21.07.2023 JUDGE ravinder

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No