Summary
A large batch of State of Haryana appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had granted relief to landowners and subsequent purchasers under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by following Pune Municipal Corporation, since overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Without examining the merits, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the writ petitions for fresh decision on the facts of each case in the light of Indore Development Authority, continued status quo orders, reserved liberty to the landowners to challenge the validity of the acquisitions and to raise equities arising from subsequent developments, and condoned delay in the SLPs on a graded scale of costs.
Issues
- Whether High Court orders granting relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation can stand after that decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
- Whether the matters should be decided on merits by the Supreme Court or remanded to the High Court for determination of the factual questions identified in Indore Development Authority.
- On what terms delay in filing the State's Special Leave Petitions should be condoned.
- What protections (status quo, liberty to challenge the acquisitions, equities from subsequent developments, effect of State concessions and consent orders) should accompany the remand.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The High Court had applied Section 24(2) as interpreted in Pune Municipal Corporation to declare acquisitions lapsed. The Court noted that Indore Development Authority overruled that decision, reading 'or' between possession and compensation as 'nor'/'and', holding that 'paid' does not include deposit in court, that the proviso is part of Section 24(2), and that the provision does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded acquisitions. Applying it requires fact-finding under paras 366.3 and 366.4, which was left to the High Court on remand. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9)
- Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The acquisitions were made by notifications under these provisions; since the High Court may not have examined challenges to the validity of the acquisition process itself when granting Section 24(2) relief, liberty was reserved to the landowners to raise all contentions on validity before the High Court, to be decided on their own merits de hors Section 24(2). (¶¶ 3, 13, 14)
Held
- Where the High Court granted relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by following Pune Municipal Corporation, which the five-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority has overruled, the appeals could only be decided by applying Indore Development Authority to the facts of each case, which calls for examination of the original records and factual determinations under paras 366.3 and 366.4 of that judgment; it was therefore just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand the writ petitions to the High Court for disposal on that basis, without any observation on merits. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 9, 22)
- Orders of status quo that prevailed during the writ petitions and the appeals are to continue until the High Court disposes of the writ petitions; the landowners and subsequent purchasers are at liberty to raise all contentions on the validity of the acquisition under the 1894 Act, to be considered on their own merits independently of Section 24(2), and to raise contentions in equity arising from subsequent developments, third-party rights or release of land after the High Court's orders, which the State may oppose. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- Since the remand is based purely on Indore Development Authority and not on the correctness of the impugned orders, the Court made no observation on concessions made by the State before the High Court or consent orders based on them; any attempt by the landowners to take advantage of such concessions or consent orders is to be considered by the High Court according to law, and all other germane contentions remain open to both sides. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Given the nature of the order proposed, delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions was condoned on a graded scale of costs per SLP (Rs. 5,000 up to 200 days, Rs. 10,000 for 201-500 days, Rs. 20,000 for 501-1000 days, Rs. 30,000 for 1001-1500 days, Rs. 40,000 for 1501-2500 days and Rs. 50,000 for 2501-3000 days), payable to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre by 05.05.2025; the High Court is not to hear the State until receipts are filed. Abatement was set aside and legal representatives substituted where applications were filed; on remand the High Court is to issue fresh notices and implead legal heirs where needed, while represented parties may appear before it on 05.05.2025 without separate notice. (¶¶ 1.6, 1.7, 17, 22)
Result
Delay condoned subject to graded costs payable to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre by 05.05.2025; abatement set aside and legal representatives substituted; leave granted; impugned High Court orders set aside and the writ petitions remanded to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with Indore Development Authority on the facts of each case, with status quo orders continued, liberty to the landowners to challenge the validity of the acquisitions and to raise equities, and no observation on merits or on State concessions or consent orders. Appeals disposed of.