Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for resettlement of Narmada Project oustees. The respondent, the original land owner, consented to the acquisition, leading to a consent award dated 11.06.1993 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, with orders for payment of 90% and 10% compensation. However, the respondent later sought withdrawal of consent, and initially, the authorities accepted this by cancelling the compensation order in 1995. The land owner did not accept the compensation offered and continued in possession. In 2009, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the 1995 order, reinstating the compensation orders, and communicated this in 2010. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court, declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on grounds that neither compensation was paid nor possession taken. The State of Gujarat appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that the consent award was valid, compensation was offered but refused, and possession was taken via panchnama, citing the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. The respondent contended that the withdrawal was accepted, and non-payment and continued possession warranted lapse. The Supreme Court analyzed that the consent award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act could not be set aside merely due to non-payment caused by the land owner's refusal. It held that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply when compensation is offered but refused, and that taking possession by panchnama is permissible. The Court reversed the High Court's judgment, restoring the acquisition and award, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Consent Award - Validity and Setting Aside - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11 - The respondent land owner entered into a consent award on 11.06.1993 but later sought withdrawal, which was initially accepted but later cancelled by authorities in 2009 - The High Court set aside the award on grounds of non-payment and continued possession - Held that once a consent award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is passed, it cannot be set aside subsequently merely because compensation was not paid due to the land owner's refusal to accept it, as the award remained valid and enforceable (Paras 2-3, 9-10). B) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Conditions Under Section 24(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The respondent argued acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) as neither compensation was paid nor possession taken, with the land owner continuing in possession - The appellants contended that compensation was offered but refused, and possession was taken via panchnama at award time - Held that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) does not apply where compensation is offered but the land owner refuses to accept it, following the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Paras 6, 12-13). C) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of Taking Possession - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The appellants claimed possession was taken by drawing a panchnama at the time of the consent award, but the High Court doubted this based on an affidavit stating the land owner continued cultivation - Held that taking possession of open land by drawing a panchnama is a legally permissible mode of taking possession, as per Indore Development Authority, and the High Court erred in not considering the entire affidavit in its true perspective (Paras 11, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the land acquisition award dated 11.06.1993, declaring that the acquisition has not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
Law Points
- Consent award under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 cannot be set aside on grounds of non-payment of compensation if land owner refuses acceptance
- deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 does not apply where compensation is offered but refused
- possession taken by drawing panchnama is legally permissible mode of taking possession
