Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh Bapurao Nikhade and Dilipkumar Bapurao Nikhade, along with the legal representatives of Bapurao Dasruji Nikhade, filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition of their agricultural land in Turakmari, Nagpur, for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for industrial development. The petitioners 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, as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, MIDC, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, opposed the petitions, arguing that compensation was tendered but refused, and possession was taken. The court examined the records, including the award and revenue entries, and found that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had tendered compensation to the petitioners, but they refused to accept it. The court also noted that possession of the land was taken by MIDC and the land was transferred to the acquiring body. The court held that the tender of compensation is sufficient to avoid lapse under Section 24(2), and the petitioners failed to prove that they remained in possession. The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the acquisition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioners claimed that the acquisition had lapsed as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The court examined the records and found that compensation had been tendered and possession was taken. Held that the acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) as the conditions for lapse were not satisfied. (Paras 1-22) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Tender of Compensation - The court noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had tendered compensation to the petitioners, but they refused to accept it. The court held that tender of compensation is sufficient to avoid lapse under Section 24(2). (Paras 10-15) C) Land Acquisition - Possession - Taking of Possession - The court found that possession of the land was taken by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and the land was transferred to the acquiring body. The petitioners failed to prove that they remained in possession. (Paras 16-20)
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 non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The acquisition is upheld as not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Section 24
- Lapse of Acquisition
- Possession
- Compensation
