Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition in Land Acquisition Case Due to Non-Communication of Award Under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Proceedings Lapse Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as Award Not Communicated Before New Act Came Into Force.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 67
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Jitesh Bhaiyalal Sahu and Rashmi Jitesh Sahu, owned 1.95 hectares of land in Mouza Morangana, Amravati. The State initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for rehabilitation of village Haturna, issuing a preliminary notification under Section 4 on 11/12/2012. After the petitioners filed objections, a declaration under Section 6 was published on 02/03/2013, and the Deputy Collector passed an award on 26/07/2013. However, the award was not communicated to the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 01/01/2014. Subsequently, the Divisional Commissioner directed that compensation be determined under the new Act, and the State issued notifications on 19/03/2014 and 27/08/2014 to that effect. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition, arguing that the proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because the award was not communicated before the new Act came into force. The respondents contended that the award was passed before the new Act and thus the proceedings did not lapse. The court analyzed Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides that if an award under the 1894 Act has been made five years or more before the commencement of the new Act but compensation has not been paid or possession not taken, the proceedings lapse. The court noted that the award was made on 26/07/2013, less than five years before 01/01/2014, but the crucial issue was that the award was not communicated to the petitioners. Relying on the principle that an award is not complete until communicated, the court held that the proceedings had not concluded and therefore lapsed under Section 24(2). The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the award, and directed that compensation be determined afresh under the 2013 Act, including solatium at 12% per annum from the date of the Section 4 notification.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Proceedings - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Non-Communication of Award - The petitioners' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award was passed on 26/07/2013 but not communicated to them under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. The new Act of 2013 came into force on 01/01/2014. The court held that since the award was not communicated, the proceedings had not concluded and therefore lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court directed that compensation be determined under the new Act. (Paras 2-8)

B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Determination Under New Act - Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act, including solatium at 12% per annum on market value from the date of the Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act. (Paras 4-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when the award was passed but not communicated to the landowners before the commencement of the new Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the award dated 26/07/2013, and directed that compensation be determined afresh under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, including solatium at 12% per annum on market value from the date of the Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act.

Law Points

  • Land Acquisition
  • Compensation
  • Lapsing of Proceedings
  • Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
  • 2013
  • Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 183

Writ Petition No.2748 of 2015

2016-08-04

B.P. Dharmadhikari, Indira Jain

Shri Rahul D. Dhande for Petitioners, Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri A.B. Patil for Respondent No.3

Jitesh Bhaiyalal Sahu and Rashmi Jitesh Sahu

The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Works, Amravati, and The Executive Engineer, Amravati Project Construction Division, Amravati

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking declaration that 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 quashing of the award dated 26/07/2013 and a direction to determine compensation under the new Act of 2013.

Filing Reason

The award was passed on 26/07/2013 under the 1894 Act but was not communicated to the petitioners under Section 12(2) before the new Act of 2013 came into force on 01/01/2014, leading to lapsing of proceedings.

Previous Decisions

The Deputy Collector passed an award on 26/07/2013; the Divisional Commissioner directed compensation under the new Act on 28/02/2014 and 13/03/2014; the State issued notifications on 19/03/2014 and 27/08/2014 regarding determination under the new Act.

Issues

Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when the award under the 1894 Act was passed but not communicated to the landowners before the commencement of the new Act. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the new Act of 2013.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the award was not communicated to them under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act, and therefore the proceedings had not concluded and lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Respondents contended that the award was passed before the new Act came into force and thus the proceedings did not lapse.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if an award under the 1894 Act has been made but not communicated to the landowners before the commencement of the new Act, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. The award is not complete until communicated under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The award was not immediately communicated to petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 01/01/2014. Respondent No.2 was then informed by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 28/02/2014 and 13/03/2014 that compensation had to be determined under Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Act of 2013.

Procedural History

Preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 11/12/2012. Declaration under Section 6 published on 02/03/2013. Award passed on 26/07/2013 but not communicated. New Act came into force on 01/01/2014. Divisional Commissioner directed compensation under new Act on 28/02/2014 and 13/03/2014. State issued notifications on 19/03/2014 and 27/08/2014. Petitioners filed writ petition on 2015. Judgment delivered on 04/08/2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6, Section 12(2)
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24, Section 26, Section 4(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition in Land Acquisition Case Due to Non-Communication of Award Under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Proceedings Lapse Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisit...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court "Supreme Court Resolves Insurance Dispute: Depreciation Calculation at the Center" "Judgment emphasizes compliance with policy terms and fair application of depreciation rates in insurance claims."