Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of land acquired under a notification dated 24.06.1986 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed writ petitions seeking a declaration 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. The petitioner contended that neither possession of the land had been taken nor compensation paid. The respondents, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State of Karnataka, appeared through counsel. The court observed that the petitioner had not produced any material to substantiate the claim that compensation was not paid or possession not taken. The court noted that the acquisition was for a public purpose and that the petitioner's mere assertion was insufficient to invoke the deeming provision. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the burden of proof lay on the petitioner, which was not discharged. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the acquisition proceedings earlier and had approached the court after a long delay. The decision was based on the principle that official acts are presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioner claimed acquisition lapsed as compensation not paid and possession not taken - Court held that the burden is on the petitioner to prove both conditions; mere assertion insufficient - Petition dismissed for lack of evidence (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, given the alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013
- Burden of proof on petitioner to establish non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession
- Presumption of regularity in official acts
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 3
Writ Petition No.18629 of 2018 (LA-RES) & Writ Petition No.25826 of 2018
Sri H.S.Dwarakanath (for petitioner), Sri H.Devendrappa (for R1), Sri Dildar Shiralli (HCGP for R2)
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that acquisition of land has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration that acquisition of schedule property vide declaration under Section 6(1) dated 4.06.1986 has lapsed and direction to respondent to receive and consider application for transfer of khatha.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation paid, and sought benefit of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Issues
Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
Whether the petitioner has discharged the burden of proving non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid, hence acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed.
Respondents appeared through counsel but no specific arguments recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
For a claim of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that neither compensation was paid nor possession taken. Mere assertion without material evidence is insufficient.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land comprised in the acquisition Notification dated 24.06.1986 issued under Section 6(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court, in substance seeking the benefit of 'deemed lapse of acquisition' in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 contending that neither the possession of the said land is taken by the respondents nor payment of compensation is paid to him, nor there is any justification whatsoever for not doing either of them.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. After service of notice, respondents appeared through counsel. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petitions on 25.01.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 6(1)
