9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents here in - original land owners and declared that the acquisitions of the lands in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013"), the APMC, Bangalore has preferred the present appeals. 3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the lands in question were acquired in three parts. The first acquisition was in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land owned by respondent No.4 - Jamanlal Bajaj Seva Trust (for short "Trust"). Second acquisition was in respect of 104 acres 5 guntas of land owned by very respondent No.4 - Trust and the third acquisition was in respect of 3 acres 34 guntas of land (which is not the subject matter of appeals before this Court). 3.2 The relevant facts in respect of first and second acquisitions are as under: In respect of 172 acres 22 guntas (First Acquisition) 3.2.1 That a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the High Court challenging the said acquisition. The High Court granted stay of dispossession in respect of 35 acres out of the 100 acres 5 guntas situated in Herohalli Village. 3.4.2 Respondent No.4 - Trust - original land owner filed Writ Petition No.37140/2000 challenging the notifications dated 13.04.1999 and 26.10.1999 in respect of the lands at Herohalli Village. 3.4.3 According to the appellant, possession was taken and handed over to the APMC by the Land Acquisition Officer vide an Official Memorandum of Possession dated 06.10.2000 in respect of 65 acres 19 guntas of the lands at Herohalli Village. 3.4.4 That an award was made by the State Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 22.05.2002, referring to a Government order dated 26.03.2002, in respect of 100 acres 11 guntas covered by Section 6 notification dated 26.10.1999. The award provided for payment of compensation to respondent No.4 - Trust after excluding 34 acres 14 guntas of acquired land treating the same as Phut Kharab belonging to the Government and further excluding 35 acres in respect of the writ petition filed Vishwaneedam trust in which an order of stay of dispossession had been passed by the High Court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal along with some companion appeals came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 28.06.2012, directing learned Single Judge to decide all the connected writ petitions finally and continued the interim stay granted by the Division Bench until the final disposal of all the petitions. 3.10 Thereafter APMC filed IA No.03/2008 seeking permission to build a wall around 65 acres of land, which came to be allowed vide order dated 12.02.2009. It is reported that thereafter APMC has completed the fencing work. Proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal 3.11 That the Land Reforms Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed an order dated 12.01.2010 in the proceedings under the KLR Act holding that 213 acres 20 guntas of respondent No.4 - Trust's land was excess land under the said Act. 3.11.1 The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No.4311/2010. The High Court vide order dated 24.03.2014 remitted the proceedings to the Tribunal with directions for a fresh consideration. 3.11.2 On remand the Tribunal passed a fresh order dated 22.09.2015 and declared that 265 acres 24 guntas of land held by respondent No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. 3.14 That though some observations were made on the proceedings under the Act, 1894, thereafter, without further finally deciding any other point framed for consideration, as reproduced hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions by holding that respective acquisitions have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 3.15 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.06.2014 holding that respective acquisitions have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the APMC preferred writ appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring that the acquisition have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 3.16 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in respective Writ Appeal No.1732/2014 and others along with accompanied appeals, the APMC, Bangalore, has preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on cannot be ascribed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not ready to deposit/pay the compensation. 4.5 It is further submitted that even the High Court has materially erred in holding that possession in respect of 65 acres of land was illegal which was taken by invoking urgency clause and not complying with the deposit of 80% of compensation as required under Section 17 of the Act, 1894. 4.6 It is further submitted that as such in the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not at all quashed and set aside the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 in respect of 172 acres and 100 acres of lands, respectively. It is submitted that after some discussion on the proceedings under the Act, 1894, the High Court has straightway considered the applicability of the Act, 2013 and has held that the acquisitions in respect of both the lands have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. 4.7 Relying upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court reported in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the lands in question was purchased in the year 1960 and the same is being used to carry out Gandhian activities and in furtherance of the object of the Trust. 6.1 It is submitted that in the present case the High Court has rightly observed that the State Government/APMC have no intention of paying any compensation for the acquisition of the subject lands and accordingly, chose to abandon the acquisition of the lands or to allow the same deliberately to lapse. 6.2 Shri Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent - Trust has also made elaborate submissions on the legality and validity of the notifications under section 4 and 6 of Act, 1894 in respect of the acquisitions of 172 acres and 100 acres lands, respectively. However, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not declared and set aside the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and has held and declared that the acquisitions have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 and the High Court has not at all decided the other issues which were placed before it. We propose not to deal with any of the submissions on other issues on which there is no deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l land owners also prayed to declare that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 8.1 Writ petition Nos. 3714037146 of 2000 filed by the original writ petitioners - original land owners was with respect to 100 acres of acquired land. In the said writ petitions original writ petitioners prayed for the following reliefs: ( i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order, quashing the impugned notification at AnnexureB dated 13.04.1999 gazetted on 17.04.1999 in LAC(2) SR 2/992000 issued by the second respondent and also the notification at AnnexureC dated 26.10.1999 gazetted on 18.11.1999 in No. Kam.E.68.AQ899 issued by the first respondent. OR (ii) In the alternative direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of the proceedings of the meeting dated 29.04.1999 Vide AnnexureD By way of amendment the original writ petitioners also prayed to declare the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed under the provisions of the Act, 2013. 8.2 That the learned Single Judge framed the following com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ivory Properties & Ors, (2020) 6 SCC 557, has observed and held that after the amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977, though Order 14 Rule 2(2) enables the court to decide the issue of law as a preliminary issue in case the same relates to (i) jurisdiction of court or (ii) a bar to suit created by any law for the time being in force, a departure has been made in amended provision whereby now it mandates the court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. It is further observed that intendment behind this departure is to avoid remand in an appealable case for deciding other issues. 8.4 Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of nondeposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Nondeposit of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined that all judgments rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [(2014) 3 SCC 183] are overruled in view of the interpretation made to Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, in Indore Development Authority (supra). There has been a trend of land owners filing fresh cases seeking lapse of acquisition on the basis of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, although such land owners may have earlier unsuccessfully filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications. Such land owners may have had the benefit of interim orders of stay of further proceedings in the acquisition process or dispossession resulting in a delay in the making of the award and payment/deposit of the compensation and consequently in taking over possession of the acquired land. There being a delay in the passing of the award owing to interim orders granted by the High Court or even by the civil courts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot now take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award has been made and consequently there has been no payment or deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired land cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench of the High Court as well as the common judgment and order passed by the High Court in writ petition(s) No. 3884/1998 and Nos. 3714037146/ 2000 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide and dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions afresh and in accordance with law and on their own merits. The learned Single Judge to adjudicate all other issues which were framed reproduced hereinabove and pronounce the judgment on all the points framed for consideration. The aforesaid exercise shall be 33 completed within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of the present order. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of these cases, in favour of either of the parties on other issues and it is ultimately for the learned Single Judge to deal with and consider the same in accordance with law and on their own merits. It is also made clear that on remand the learned Single Judge to adjudicate and pronounce the judgment on all other issues except the issue with respect to the lapse of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of the Act, 2013. All the appeals are allowed accordingly. We als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
