IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5182-5184 of 2017)

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

NARINDER KUMAR & ORS. ETC.ETC.

Respondent $(s)$

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Delay condoned.

Substitution allowed.

Leave granted.

The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was issued in the year 1984 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was followed in the year 1985 and award was passed in the The impugned order has been passed allowing vear 1986. ature Not Verified Digital signed<br>NEELANGUARI<br>Data: 2018 02 23 writ petition on the ground that acquisition has lapsed by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 that order has been assailed in this court and in view of the decision of this Court in Indore Develoment Authority vs. Shailendra (dead) through its Lrs. & Ors. in C.A. No. 20982 of 2017 on 8th February, 2018, alongwith this Appeal, the impugned order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside for the reasons mentioned in Indore Development Authority (supra).

However, on merits the only submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that now temple has been constructed after the decision was rendered by the High Court in the year 2014; as there was some delay in filing the special leave petition hence during that period the temple has been constructed alongwith physiotherapy Center in the part of the area covering 213 sq. yard that may be exempted.

It was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that possession is with HUDA and illegal construction has been raised, once award has been passed construction could not have been raised.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that as a temple did not exist when the notification under Section 4 had been

2

issued and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made wayback in the year 1984-85 it could not be a legally tenable ground that the area, in which subsequently construction of temple and Physiotherapy center was made, should be exempted from the acquisition.

We find no ground to entertain the aforesaid submissions. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

The appeals are allowed.

................J. (ARUN MISHRA)

................J. (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 19, 2018

ITEM NO.61 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10742/2008

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-03-2008 in WA No. 128/2008 passed by the High Court of M.P. Principal Seat At Jabalpur)

YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 15127/2016 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 31678/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 5182-5184/2017 (IV-B) (APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION TO BRING ON RECORD LRS. OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO. 1, DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUION, APPLN. FOR PERMISSON TO FILE VAKALATNAMA ON BEHALF OF LR. OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPLN. FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OT.) SLP(C) No. 27389/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 27383/2015 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 34787/2015 (XIV) Date : 19-02-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sukrit Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sudipta Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, AAG Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Suraj P. Ahlawat, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Ravinder Nain, Adv.

Mr. Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR Mr. Siddharth Singla, AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Gupta, AAG Mr. R.K. Rajwanshi, Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.S. Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mrs. Santosh Singh, AOR Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv, Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Adv. Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv.

5

M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AAG(M.P.) Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Rao Ranjit, AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. M.K. Ravi, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Mr. A. Tewari, Adv. Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Ms. Anubha Agrawal, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR

Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Mr. Anil Nath Khanna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Pareek, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

IN SLP(C) No. 10742/2008

We do not find merits in the submission in the challenge to the invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also to violation of policy while making acquisition of land, we find no ground to interfere on merits.

It was lastly urged that since the State Government does not require the land at this stage, land may be released by the State under the provisions of Section 48 of the said Act. We do not comment on merits of said prayer. It is for petitioner to file representation to State Government. In case it is filed within 15 days, the State Government to decide it within three months by a reasoned order.

The petition is disposed of.

IN SLP(C) No. 31678/2015

List tomorrow i.e. on 20.02.2018.

IN SLP(C) Nos. 27389 & 27383/2015

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved.

7

IN SLP(C) Nos. 34787/2015 & 15127/2016

List tomorrow i.e. on 20.02.2018.

IN SLP(C) Nos. 5182-5184 of 2017

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IN SLP(C) 5182-84/2017 IS PLACED ON THE FILE)