HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17156 of 2016 Date of Decision: 30.11.2016 **** Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Baba ... Petitioner VS. State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA **** 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes 2. Whether reportable? No 3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No 4. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes / No 5. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes / No **** Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana **** SURYA KANT, J. (Oral) (1) The land of the petitioner measuring 6 kanal 16 marla fully described in para 2 of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of Village Ugra Kheri, Tehsil & District Panipat was acquired vide award dated 27.03.2002. The petitioner has laid challenge to the subject- acquisition as according to him the same is deemed to have lapsed on both the grounds contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, namely, possession of the acquired property is still with him and compensation amount has been neither paid to him nor deposited in the Court in terms of of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Rohtak has filed his status report dated 18.11.2016 and in para 3, it is admitted that the compensation amount has not been paid and is still lying deposited the account of the Land Acquisition Collector. In other words, the V.Vishal 2017.01.09 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17156 of 2016 - 2 - compensation amount was never deposited with the Reference Court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. (3) As regard to possession, the petitioners have placed on record photographs of the acquired site comprising an ashram to show that there exists residential construction at the site. The plea taken by the respondents is that the possession was handed over to HUDA on the date of passing of the award. Obviously, it was nothing but handing over of symbolic possession only. There is no documentary proof attached by the Land Acquisition Collector to prove that the physical possession of the acquired site was ever delivered to HUDA. (4) That being the state of affairs, there can be no escape but to hold that the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are fully satisfied. In this view of the matter and for the detailed reasons assigned by this Court in the order dated 27.10.2016 rendered in CWP No.17464 of 2007 titled as Satnam Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition is declared to have lapsed on both grounds as contained in Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. (5) Having held so, we are further of the view that since Section 24(2) of 2013 Act itself in so many words contemplates the possibility of re-acquisition of the land/property in respect whereof the previous acquisition has lapsed, it is necessary to direct the petitioner to maintain status quo re: creation of third party rights; to keep the land/property free from all types of encumbrances and not to change the nature of land/property for a period of one year so that meanwhile the respondent- State may, if such property is needed for a “public purpose”, again acquire it. Such a direction is necessitated also for the reason that in numerous cases V.Vishal 2017.01.09 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17156 of 2016 - 3 - State or its agencies have taken possession in part and development works have been executed except over that land/property in litigation. Those development works ought to be completed in public interest and the only consequence of lapsing of previous acquisition, mostly due to fault of the Government Officers/ Officials, would be that the owners of such land/property will be entitled to compensation and other benefits admissible under the 2013 Act. (6) Ordered accordingly. (Surya Kant) Judge 30.11.2016 vishal shonkar (Sudip Ahluwalia) Judge V.Vishal 2017.01.09 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document