Read Order: Hira Lal v. State of Haryana and Others
LE Staff
Chandigarh, August 17, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked a petitioner to avail an alternative remedy to seek compensation for his land acquired by the Haryana government for construction of a road in 1971, while disposing of his plea.
A decree for the same has already been passed by the lower court, the High Court said.
The petitioner’s land was acquired by the State of Haryana as per a notification dated 6.9.1971 for construction of a metal road from Asalwas to Jhabwa as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no award was passed till date for compensation to the petitioner even after commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The petitioner contended that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., it is already a settled law that in case no award is made as on 01.01.2014, i.e, the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings but compensation is to be paid under the provisions of Act of 2013.
The bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal noted that directions have already been issued by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Rewari to the State Government to acquire the land and pay compensation according to the prevalent Government Rules. The petitioner prayed for implementation of this decree.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the respondents have assessed the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas after 01.01.2014, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force.
The petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Jahrudeen and Others v. State of Haryana and Others.
Justice Kshetarpal, however, noted that in the case of Jahrudeen (supra) the Division Bench after noticing that the State had failed to complete the acquisition under the 1894 Act, directed the completion of acquisition under the 2013 Act.
“On a Court question being asked, learned counsel representing the petitioner, admits that before the Division Bench, the petitioners did not already had a similar decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case,” Justice Khetarpal said.
“In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy,” he added.