14 yrs on, land acquisition process lapses in Gurugram

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that development works should not come to a standstill on a chunk of land after the acquisition proceedings lapse primarily because of a fault on the part of government officers.

Nearly 14 years after the acquisition process was initiated for acquiring about 22 acres in Gurugram district, the High Court also ruled that the acquisition had lapsed. But at the same time, a Division Bench directed the petitioner landowners to maintain status quo for a year to enable the respondent state of Haryana to acquire the property, if required, for “public purpose”. The land, situated within the revenue estate of Badshahpur, Ghasola, Adampur, Tigra and Tikri villages in Gurugram district, was initially acquired for the development of residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 49 and 50.

The ruling came on a bunch of eight petitions by Satnam Singh and other petitioners. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudip Ahluwalia asserted it was an admitted fact that the petitioners neither gave their consent to receive nor actually received the compensation. It was also not in dispute that the compensation was never deposited in the court.

The Bench added that the applications filed by the petitioners — to declare that the acquisition of their land/properties would deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation was not paid to them in accordance with the legal provisions—were allowed. It was declared that the acquisition of their land made vide notifications dated March 3, 2003, and March 2, 2004, and the award dated December 20, 2006, was deemed to have lapsed.

Before parting with the judgment, the Bench added Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, itself contemplated the possibility of re-acquisition of the land/property where the previous acquisition had lapsed.

It was necessary to direct the petitioners to maintain status quo regarding the creation of third party rights; to keep the land/property free from all encumbrances and not to change the nature of land/property for a year so that the state may, if required for a “public purpose”, again acquire it.