Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Order Date: May 23, 2014
Case Overview
- Petitioners Bhupal Sharma (CWP 17369/2001) and Satish Chand et al. (CWP 5495/2002) challenged notifications dated 28‑08‑2001 and 30‑08‑2001 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the award dated 27‑03‑2002 concerning acquisition of their land.
- Interim stay orders were granted on 02‑11‑2001 and 05‑04‑2002, preventing dispossession; these stays remained operative.
- The court examined whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “2013 Act”) applied, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Raj (Civil Appeals 5478‑5483/2014).
- The Supreme Court held that for awards passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act more than five years before 01‑01‑2014, the pendente‑lite period during litigation is counted towards the five‑year period; if possession is not taken, the acquisition is deemed to have elapsed.
- In the present cases, the award (No. 15/87‑88) was dated 05‑06‑1987, more than five years before the 2013 Act, and possession had not been taken due to the stays; compensation had also not been paid.
Final Outcome
- The court declared the acquisition lapsed, set aside the 2001 notifications and the 2002 award.
- Respondents (State of Haryana) may reacquire the land in accordance with the 2013 Act.
- Petitioners are restrained from alienating, changing the nature of, or constructing on the released land for a period of one year from receipt of the certified order; the District Administration must ensure the land’s nature is not altered.
- After the one‑year period, if no fresh acquisition is initiated, petitioners may use the land as permitted under local laws.
Topics: Land Acquisition, Judicial Order