At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court it was the case on behalf of the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners that the compensation with respect to the land in question has not been paid to them and even the possession of the lands in question is with them and therefore, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as neither the possession has been taken over nor the compensation for the acquired land has been paid.
That the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition before this Hon’ble court because the petitioners were not owners of the acquired land at the time of the notification under section – 4 dated 26.08.2003 and under section – 6 dated 10.08.2004.
The petitioners become owners of the land in dispute vide order dated 24.05.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High court in Regular Second Appeal no.
1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 18 were not owners of the acquired land on the date of passing the Award and other land owners did not give their consent to receive the compensation amount of the acquired land and did not provide any documentary proof to prove their ownership and as such un-disbursed amount, is lying deposited in the account of the LAC, and is available for payment immediately on demand of actual land owners on the date of passing the Award.
It is submitted that possession of the acquired land has been handed over to the representative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide Rapat no. It is submitted that the physical possession of the acquired land has been handed over to the representative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide Rapat no.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
It is submitted that the acquisition proceeding qua the petitioners cannot be lapsed as per the provision of section 24 (2) of Right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, because the physical possession of the acquired land has been handed over to the representative of HUDA on the same day of the award vide Rapat no.
The acquisition proceeding were carried out in accordance with Law.”
From the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary on 04.08.2006. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SUSHILA (2023 INSC 36)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009205-009205 / 2022
