IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.5403 of 2009
Date of decision: 5.5.2009
M.S.Kang
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.:
1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated
18.11.2008, Annexure P.5, determining compensation of land of
the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short, ‘the Act’).
2. Case of the petitioner is that his land has been
acquired in pursuance of notifications dated 31.12.2004 under
section 4 and dated 30.5.2005 under section 6 of the Act. In
some connected writ petitions, stay of dispossession was granted
and the same was vacated after about six months. However,
award was made on 18.11.2008 which was beyond three years
from the last date of publication and even if the period of stay is
excluded, award was hit by Section 11-A of the Act.
CWP No.5403 of 2009 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Ramalinga Thevar
v. State of Tamilnadu 2000(4) SCC 322, wherein the question
for consideration was whether stay of dispossession was to be
taken into account for purposes of explanation to Section 11-A of
the Act. While holding that period of stay of dispossession was
also to be taken into account, reference was made to earlier
judgment of Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmad Nendoliya v.
State of Gujarat 1991(4) SCC 531, taking the view that for
interpretation of explanation, invocation of urgency clause did not
make any difference.
4. We do not find any relevance of the said judgment for
deciding the question of application of Section 11-A of the Act, in
view of observations of three Hon’ble Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain and others v.
State of UP and others AIR 1993 SC 2517 holding that where
urgency provisions are invoked, Section 11-A of the Act could not
apply, as possession could be taken before the award and land
vested in the State on payment of compensation. It was also
observed that mere fact that compensation was not actually paid
to the land owners, did not make any difference.
5. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs. v.
State of U.P. & others AIR 2007 SC 1675, wherein after expiry
CWP No.5403 of 2009 3
of period of two years, it was held that award could not be made
in view of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel
submitted that reference to facts of that case noted in para 1,
shows that urgency provision was invoked. There is, however,
nothing to show that compensation had been paid or deposited
and land had been vested in the State. There is also no
discussion in the said judgment that even if urgency provision
was invoked, the proceedings for acquisition will lapse on expiry
of period stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. The said
judgment is, thus, distinguishable.
6. Shri Kang also submitted that in view of language of
Section 11-A of the Act, the proceedings should be treated to
have lapsed. This is the precise submission which was raised
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was rejected, having
regard to the scheme providing for vesting of the land in the State
on payment of 80% compensation under Section 17(3-A) of the
Act, in Satender Prasad Jain (supra). This submission cannot,
thus, be accepted.
7. Learned counsel for the State points out that this was
a case of urgency as mentioned in the impugned notifications
Annexures P.1 and P.2 and in such a case, provisions of Section
11-A of the Act were not applicable, as compensation had been
duly paid even before making the award on which the land
vested in the State. He points out that 80% of compensation had
CWP No.5403 of 2009 4
already been paid prior to 29.5.2006 which was noticed in the
judgment of this Court, Annexure P.4.
8. In Satendra Prasad Jain (supra), wherein it was held
as under:-
“Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of
the land proposed to be acquired only after an award
of compensation in respect thereof has been made
under section 11. Upon the taking of possession, the
land vested in the Government, that is to say, the
owner of the land loses to the Government the title to
it. This is what section 16 states. The provision of
section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner
and ensure that the award is made within a period of
two years from the date of the section 6 declaration.
In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government
fails to make an award within two years of the
declaration under section 6, the land ahs still not
vested in the Government and its title remains with
the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still
pending, and by virtue of the provisions of section 11-
A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of
urgency, Government takes possession of the land
prior to the making of the award under section 11 and
thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land
which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1)
states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11-
A call have no application to cases acquisition under
section 17, because the lands have already vested in
the Government and there is no provision in the said
Act by which land statutorily vested in the
Government can revert to the woner.” (emphasis
supplied).
CWP No.5403 of 2009 5
The said view has been reiterated, inter-alia, in Awadh Bihari
Yadav and others v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996
SC 122.
9. In view of above, we do not find any ground to quash
the impugned notifications and the award.
10. Mr. Kang says that even though compensation may
have been deposited, payment was not made, inspite of efforts of
the petitioner.
11. We find merit in this submission. Accordingly, while
rejecting challenge to acquisition proceedings, we direct that
compensation due be paid to the petitioner within one month from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. .
12. The petition is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
May 5, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
'gs/ashwani JUDGE