The division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Haryana & Ors Vs Sushila & Ors held that once the possession was taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the Respondents thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the High Court has declared that the acquisition concerning the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Act, 2013.
The Respondents (original Petitioners) filed a writ contending that the compensation concerning land has not been paid to them and they are in possession of the land. Thus, under Section 24(2) of the Act, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed as neither possession was taken over, nor compensation has been paid for the acquired land.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the Respondents were the subsequent purchasers and hence had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It was contended that the Respondents are encroachers in the acquired land and no compensation was paid to them as they were not co-owners at the time of the award.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that as the possession was taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the Respondents thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and pray that as now they are in possession, maybe as encroachers, they are entitled to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It would be giving a premium to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of the legislature.
The decision of the Court:
The order passed by the High Court was declared to be unsustainable and hence was quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: The State of Haryana & Ors Vs Sushila & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt
Case No: Civil APPEAL NO.9205 of 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 22 SC
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Monika Gusain
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments