Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging land acquisition awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the ground that compensation had not been paid. The State, in its reply, contended that notices were served to the landowners but they did not come forward to collect compensation, which was then deposited in the Government Personal Ledger Account (PLA). The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, which interpreted Section 24(2) and held that the word 'paid' does not include an offer of compensation; the Collector must either pay the compensation to the persons entitled or deposit it in court under Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Since the compensation was deposited in the PLA and not in court, the requirement of Section 24(2) was not satisfied. However, the court noted that the landowners had not come forward to collect the compensation, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. The petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Interpretation of 'paid' - The issue was whether deposit of compensation in the Government Personal Ledger Account (PLA) amounts to payment under Section 24(2). The court, following Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, held that mere deposit in PLA does not constitute payment or deposit in court as required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since the landowners did not come forward to collect compensation despite notices, the acquisition did not lapse. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deposit of compensation amount in the Government Personal Ledger Account (PLA) instead of payment to the landowner or deposit in court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, results in the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the deposit of compensation in the Government PLA does not constitute payment or deposit in court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since the landowners did not come forward to collect compensation despite notices, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- deposit of compensation in government account not equivalent to payment or deposit in court
- offer of compensation not covered by 'paid'
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 48
Writ Petition No.11616 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.11259 of 2014
Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for the Petitioners, Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Shri. Bapuso Narayan Kulkarni (deceased) through Lrs and Ors. (in WP 11616/2014); Shri. Appaso Chintaman Utture (deceased) through Lrs (in WP 11259/2014)
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging land acquisition awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that compensation had not been paid, and therefore, under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed.
Previous Decisions
The Land Acquisition Officer had made awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (dated 30th September 2002 for WP 11616/2014 and 21st January 2004 for WP 11259/2014). The State deposited the compensation in the Government Personal Ledger Account (PLA) after the landowners failed to collect it despite notices.
Issues
Whether the deposit of compensation in the Government Personal Ledger Account (PLA) amounts to payment or deposit in court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so as to prevent lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that compensation was not paid, and therefore acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
State argued that notices were served to the landowners, but they did not come forward to collect compensation, which was then deposited in the Government PLA.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'paid' in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include an offer of compensation. The Collector must either pay the compensation to the persons entitled or deposit it in court under Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Deposit in the Government PLA is not sufficient. However, if the landowners fail to collect compensation despite notices, the acquisition does not lapse.
Judgment Excerpts
The Apex Court interpreted SubSection (2) of Section 24 while dealing with the issue whether the offer of the compensation to the owner/persons interested will be covered by the word 'paid' used in SubSection (2) of Section 24.
Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the court.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer made awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (30th September 2002 for WP 11616/2014 and 21st January 2004 for WP 11259/2014). The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these awards, seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The State filed affidavits in reply stating that compensation was deposited in the Government PLA after the landowners failed to collect it. The court heard both petitions together and dismissed them.
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 31
