Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the State of Haryana against a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which declared that the acquisition of lands belonging to the respondents (original writ petitioners) had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court had found that compensation had not been paid or deposited with the Civil Court or Reference Court as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) and that the awards were passed five years or more prior to the new Act coming into force on 01.01.2014. The State argued that compensation had been deposited in the government treasury, which should be considered as valid deposit. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. It noted that the requirement under Section 31(2) is to deposit compensation with the Civil Court or Reference Court, not merely in the government treasury. The Court held that deposit in the treasury does not satisfy the statutory requirement. However, the Court also observed that the High Court had not properly considered whether the deposit in the treasury could be treated as compliance. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on the limited issue of whether the deposit of compensation in the treasury amounts to valid deposit under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 - Deposit of Compensation - The issue was whether deposit of compensation in the government treasury constitutes valid deposit under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Supreme Court held that deposit in the government treasury is not equivalent to deposit with the Civil Court or Reference Court as required under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on the question of deposit. (Paras 1-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land can be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when compensation was deposited in the government treasury but not with the Civil Court or Reference Court as required under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned common judgment of the High Court, and remanded the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration on the limited issue of whether the deposit of compensation in the government treasury amounts to valid deposit under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- deposit of compensation in government treasury is not equivalent to deposit with Civil Court or Reference Court
- deemed lapse of acquisition
