- Case
- THE STATE OF HARYANA v. AALAMGIR (Supreme Court of India, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Land Acquisition Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Code of Civil Procedure.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The judgment discusses Sections 4, 6, 16, 31, and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It mentions that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued for acquiring land. Section 16 relates to taking possession of land. Section 31 deals with tendering compensation, and Section 34 concerns interest. The court notes that once possession is taken under Section 16, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It also clarifies that tendering compensation under Section 31(1) fulfills the obligation to pay, and landowners cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation was tendered. Interest under Section 34 can be granted if the obligation under Section 31 has not been fulfilled.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The judgment extensively discusses Section 24 of the 2013 Act, particularly sub-section (2). It refers to the Supreme Court's earlier interpretation of Section 24(2) in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was later overruled by Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. The court quotes paragraphs 365 to 367 from the Indore Development Authority judgment, clarifying that the word "or" in Section 24(2) should be read as "nor" or "and". It states that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) occurs only when possession has not been taken, nor compensation paid due to the authorities' inaction for five years or more before the 2013 Act's commencement. The judgment also clarifies that "paid" in Section 24(2) does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The proviso to Section 24(2) is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not Section 24(1)(b). Section 24(2) does not give rise to a new cause of action to question concluded proceedings and applies to proceedings pending on 1-1-2014.
Civil Procedure: The judgment addresses the condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and applications for setting aside abatement. It allows applications seeking condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives. It also specifies that orders of status quo prevailing in writ petitions should continue until the High Court disposes of the writ petitions. The judgment also discusses the imposition of costs for the delay in filing SLPs, with a detailed table specifying the amount of costs based on the number of days of delay.
