Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.61563/2011 (LA-RES), whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 (Narasimha S/o. Gurucharya Avadhani) was allowed. The respondent No.1 had invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authorities to restore possession of the land or pay compensation. The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 was the owner of certain land that was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was passed, but the State neither took possession of the land nor paid compensation to the respondent No.1 within five years of the award. Consequently, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition contending 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 (the 2013 Act). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed and directed the State to either restore possession or pay compensation. The State appealed, arguing that the acquisition was valid and that the provisions of the 2013 Act did not apply retrospectively. The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, heard the appeal. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which states that if possession is not taken or compensation is not paid within five years of the award, the acquisition proceedings lapse. The court noted that the State had not taken possession nor paid compensation within the stipulated period. The court also considered the argument regarding retrospectivity but held that the 2013 Act applies to pending proceedings. The court found no merit in the State's appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Single Judge's order. The court directed the State to comply with the order within a specified period.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court considered whether acquisition proceedings lapse if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid within five years of the award - Held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed as the State failed to take possession and pay compensation within the stipulated period - The Single Judge's order directing restoration of possession or payment of compensation was upheld (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where possession was not taken and compensation was not paid within five years of the award.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.61563/2011 is upheld. The State is directed to comply with the order within a specified period.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Possession Not Taken
- Compensation Not Paid
- Writ of Mandamus
- Restoration of Possession
