Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original owners of land at Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, challenged the acquisition of their land by CIDCO under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was for the purpose of developing a new township. The award was made on 30th April 1997, but compensation was not paid to the petitioners within five years from the date of the award. The petitioners contended that under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if compensation is not paid within five years, the acquisition lapses. They also relied on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides that if compensation has not been paid, the acquisition lapses. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and CIDCO, argued that possession of the land was taken and therefore the acquisition did not lapse. The court examined the provisions and held that mere taking of possession without payment of compensation does not prevent lapsing. The court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the acquisition lapses due to non-payment of compensation. The court also allowed an interim application for impleadment of other affected persons. The judgment was pronounced on 29th April 2022.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition - Non-payment of Compensation - Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land for CIDCO on the ground that compensation was not paid within five years from the date of the award. The court held that since compensation was not paid, the acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Effect of Possession Taken - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The respondents argued that possession was taken and therefore the acquisition did not lapse. The court held that mere taking of possession without payment of compensation does not prevent lapsing under Section 24(2). (Paras 11-15) C) Land Acquisition - Interim Application - Impleadment - The court allowed an interim application for impleadment of other affected persons. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of the petitioners' land lapses due to non-payment of compensation within the stipulated period under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the acquisition of the petitioners' land lapses due to non-payment of compensation. The interim application for impleadment was also allowed.
Law Points
- Land acquisition
- lapsing of acquisition
- non-payment of compensation
- Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
