Case Note & Summary
The State of Haryana appealed against the High Court's judgment that declared the acquisition of the respondent's land as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land was acquired vide Notification dated 24.8.2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development in Sector 57, Gurgaon. The award was passed on 21.7.2003, and compensation was paid to the respondent on 31.7.2003. The State claimed possession was taken on the same day via Rapat No.583 and handed over to HUDA. The respondent filed a writ petition in 2015 alleging that possession was not taken and that he had constructed rooms and shops on the land. The High Court held that since there were structures, physical possession was not taken, and the acquisition lapsed. The Supreme Court examined the rapat and panchnama, which showed that possession was taken by walking around the land, marking it, posting a watchman, and beating drums, in the presence of witnesses. The Court held that for large tracts of land, such symbolic possession is sufficient, relying on precedents like Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal. The Court distinguished cases where structures exist, noting that here the State had taken possession and the respondent's subsequent encroachment did not affect the validity. The Court also noted that the respondent had accepted compensation without protest. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the acquisition had not lapsed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Taking of Possession - Panchnama - Sufficiency - Where the acquired land is a large tract, drawing of panchnama and rapat in the presence of witnesses and handing over possession to the beneficiary authority constitutes valid taking of possession, even if structures exist, provided the authority takes steps to physically dispossess the owner. (Paras 7-12) B) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Possession Taken - Once possession is validly taken and compensation paid, acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, even if the land remains unutilized. (Paras 14-15) C) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of Taking - Large Tract - In case of acquisition of large tract of land, it is not necessary to take physical possession of each parcel; symbolic possession by preparing panchnama in presence of independent witnesses is sufficient. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether possession of land has been taken after passing of award in land acquisition proceedings, and whether the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order, and held that the acquisition had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court directed that the respondent's writ petition stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Taking of possession
- Panchnama
- Rapat
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Possession of large tract of land
- Symbolic possession
