CWP No. 11495 of 2015. Case: Kartar Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 11495 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate and Rupa Pathania, Advocate |
| Judges | Hemant Gupta and Raj Rahul Garg, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 18, 4, 6; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amdndment) Act, 2001 - Section 41; Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 - Sections 3, 3(8aa), 3(1)(b); Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 |
| Judgement Date | September 08, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the legality of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') particularly the expression 'prior to commencement of the Act'. The challenge is also to the notifications dated 25.01.2008 and 18.03.2008, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively acquiring the land of the petitioners and subsequent Award dated 23.12.2009.
2. For the facility of reference, sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act is reproduced as under:--
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.--
(1) xx xx xx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
3. It may be noticed that the petitioners have withdrawn the amount of compensation awarded by the Learned Land Acquisition Collector and have also sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is pending consideration before the Reference Court.
4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Legislature has created two classes of the land-owners. One where the award has been given 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act and another where the award is within 5 years but possession has not been taken. Therefore, the discrimination between two classes of the landowners is not permissible. It is argued that the purpose of the enactment of the new legislation is to grant benefit of the land once owned by the landowners for the reason that the land has remained unutilized for five years, therefore, the time fixed of five years prior to the commencement of Act is unreasonable and has no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved.
5. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. In a judgment reported as Model Town Residents Association v. State of Punjab and others (2002) 3 PLR 88, the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that there is no reasonable basis of a classification of a building, whether let out or self occupied. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Association and...
To continue reading
Request your trial