Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of late Narayan Aditwar Patil, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Gat No. 91/1 at Talavali village, Thane, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land was acquired and an award was passed on 31st August 1984. The petitioners initially raised two grounds: that physical possession remained with them and that compensation had not been paid. However, during arguments, the ground of possession was not pressed. The sole ground pressed was non-payment of compensation. The respondents, including the State and the acquiring body, contended that the compensation amount was deposited in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on the same day as the award, i.e., 31st August 1984. The court examined the record and found that the compensation was indeed deposited in court. The court held that deposit of compensation in court constitutes payment under the Act, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. The petition was dismissed.
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 - Payment of Compensation - The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because compensation was not paid to them. However, the court found that the compensation amount was deposited in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 31st August 1984, which constitutes payment under the Act. The court held that once the compensation is deposited in court, the acquisition does not lapse. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are deemed to have 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 the compensation amount determined in the award has not been paid to the original owner or his legal heirs.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the compensation amount was deposited in court on the date of the award, which constitutes payment under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, and therefore the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deposit of compensation in court is valid payment
- acquisition does not lapse if compensation is deposited in court
- legal heirs cannot claim lapse after compensation deposited in court
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 14
Writ Petition No.1074 of 2015 with Writ Petition No.1075 of 2015
Shantanu Kemkar, Prakash Naik
Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Amit Karkhanis, Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh and Ms. Suparna Holamagi i/b. M/s. Kay Legal & Associates LLP, for the Petitioners. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ajay Khaire and Mr. Roop Basin, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Ramesh Narayan Patil and Others
The State of Maharashtra and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that land 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
Declaration that acquisition proceedings in respect of land Gat No. 91/1 at Talavali village, Thane, have lapsed due to non-payment of compensation.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that compensation determined in the award dated 31st August 1984 was not paid to the original owner or to them as legal heirs.
Previous Decisions
Award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31st August 1984.
Issues
Whether the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 on the ground that compensation has not been paid to the original owner or his legal heirs.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that compensation amount determined in the award has not been paid to them, hence acquisition should be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
Respondents contended that the compensation amount was deposited in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 31st August 1984, which constitutes payment under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Deposit of compensation amount in a court of law on the date of the award constitutes payment under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and therefore the acquisition proceedings do not lapse.
Judgment Excerpts
In the circumstances, the acquisition proceeding deserves to be declared to have deemed to be lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
The compensation amount was deposited in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 31st August 1984.
Once the compensation is deposited in court, the acquisition does not lapse.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1074 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.1075 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reserved order on 14th December 2016 and pronounced judgment on 20th December 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24(2)
- Constitution of India: 226
