High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Land Acquisition Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Upholds Award and Rejects Lapsing Claim. The court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply where compensation was paid and possession taken under the 1894 Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of a public project. The petitioner contended that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) on the ground that compensation had not been paid and possession had not been taken. The respondent, the acquiring authority, argued that the award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, compensation was duly paid to the landowners, and possession was taken. The High Court examined the records and found that the award was made prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and the provisions of Section 24(2) were not attracted as both compensation and possession had been completed. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no lapse of the acquisition proceedings.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Award - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court considered whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession - Held that the award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to the landowners, and possession was taken by the acquiring body - The petition was dismissed as the conditions for lapsing under Section 24(2) were not satisfied (Paras 1-14).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 due to alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as compensation was paid and possession was taken.

Law Points

  • Land Acquisition
  • Compensation
  • Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
  • 2013
  • Lapsing of Award
  • Possession
  • Notice under Section 12(2)
  • Award under Section 11
  • Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 160

WRIT PETITION NO. 455 OF 2019

2023-08-19

2023:BHC-GOA:1465

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Filing Reason

Alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession by the acquiring authority.

Issues

Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that compensation was not paid and possession was not taken, hence the acquisition lapsed. Respondent argued that award was passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, compensation was paid, and possession was taken.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions where the award was made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation has been paid and possession taken before the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was paid to the landowners. Possession was taken by the acquiring body.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The court heard arguments and dismissed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 11, Section 12(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Land Acquisition Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Upholds Award and Rejects Lapsing Claim. The court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply where compensation was paid and po...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Petition as Withdrawn Due to Pending Application for Same Relief. Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 376(2)(c), 506, 304 IPC and Section 3(1)(w...