Supreme Court Allows Haryana State To Invoke Indore Development Authority Judgment; Remands Land Acquisition Matters
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of numerous Civil Appeals against the Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of the acquisition of various parcels of land.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while remanding land acquisition matters, has allowed the Haryana State to invoke the Judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020).
The Court was hearing a batch of numerous Civil Appeals preferred against the Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of the acquisition of various parcels of land from time to time by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered, “The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on or before 05.05.2025. In case the amounts of costs are not deposited, the High Court shall not hear the appellants herein until the filing of copies of the receipts/acknowledgement before the Registry of this Court as well as the High Court and by serving a copy of the same to the respondents’ counsel herein.”
Advocates Akshay Amritanshu and Samar Vijay Singh appeared for the Appellant while Advocates Vanshaja Shukla and Diksha Rai Goswami appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondents i.e., the landowners/subsequent purchasers have assailed the acquisition process. In certain cases, the contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition were raised in the Writ Petitions filed by them. Pursuant to the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), fresh Writ Petitions were filed seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the Act. In certain cases, amendments to the pending Writ Petitions were also made while in certain other Writ Petitions while assailing the process of acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 as well as under other provisions of the 1894 Act, the Applications seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were also made.
Various contentions were also raised under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act before the High Court. In some of the Judgments, the High Court followed the earlier Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (2014) and granted relief to the Respondents. Being aggrieved by this, the State and others preferred the Appeals before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “The applications for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions have been filed by the State of Haryana and other parties … Learned counsel for the State submitted that in certain cases, delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions has been condoned subject to payment of costs in the range of Rs.10,000/- etc. In certain other cases, the delay has been condoned without imposition of any costs as such.”
The Court added that in some of these cases, the Applications have been allowed and the delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs in certain cases.
“Having regard to the nature of the order which we propose to pass in these cases, we condone the delay in those Special Leave Petitions where applications are pending for condonation of delay. Consequently, in these cases where delay has not yet been condoned, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned, subject to payment of costs”, it ordered.
The Court, therefore, directed that the costs be imposed in the matters where delay has not been condoned. The Court further allowed the Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing Applications for setting-aside abatement in the case of deceased Respondents/parties.
“Abatement is set-aside. Consequently, the applications seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents/parties are allowed. … Amended memos of parties shall be filed either by the learned counsel for the appellant-State or by the learned counsel who are appearing for the respondents”, it also directed.
The Court said that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned Orders and remand the matters to the High Court for reconsideration of the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents and to dispose of those Writ Petitions on the basis of the recent Judgment in the Indore Development Authority case, by applying the ratio and the observations of the said Judgment to the facts of each case as they emanate in each of the cases.
“… we reserve liberty to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all available contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition which have been undertaken under the LA Act of 1894 before the High Court. It is needless to observe that those contentions would be considered on their own merits de hors any contention raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act”, it remarked.
The Court further noted that in certain cases there may be death of the Respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers and there has been no application filed for substitution of the deceased before the Court.
“Since we are remanding the matters to the High Court, it is obvious that the High Court will issue fresh notices to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers if they have not appeared before the High Court in those cases and where there is demise of any respondent, the legal heirs have to be impleaded having regard to the applications that are to be filed wherever there are no applications filed for impleadment of legal heirs of deceased respondents herein”, it directed.
The Court concluded that if the Respondents wish to take advantage of the concessions or the consent orders made by the High Court on the basis of the concessions made by the State, the same shall be considered having regard to the respective contentions advanced at the Bar and in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and directed the Appellants to deposit the imposed costs with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on or before May 5, 2025.
Cause Title- State of Haryana & Others v. Aalamgir & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 407)
