Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original owner Amratlal Dharamchand Shah, filed a writ petition on 19.07.2019 seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings for land bearing Block No. 258, Survey No. 246/2 and Survey No. 240, total admeasuring 42,273 sq.mtrs. at village Sachin, Taluka Chorasiya, District Surat had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). They also sought a mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession pending the petition. On the first hearing, 23.07.2019, the court adjourned the matter sine die noting that the interpretation of Section 24(2) was pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench delivered its decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal on 06.03.2020, but the petitioners did not file any application to revive the petition. The petition was listed for hearing on 02.03.2026 under the court's listing methodology. The court considered the Constitution Bench's ruling, which held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'and', meaning that for an acquisition to lapse, both conditions—non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession—must be satisfied. The court noted that the petitioners had not placed any material to show that possession had not been taken. The petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to make out a case for lapse of acquisition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Interpretation of 'or' - The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'and', meaning both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for acquisition to lapse. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioners failed to show that both conditions were satisfied. (Paras 4-6) B) Land Acquisition - Burden of Proof - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - The burden lies on the petitioner to establish that neither compensation was paid nor possession was taken. Mere non-payment of compensation is insufficient if possession has been taken. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, given the interpretation of the word 'or' in that provision.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The petitioners failed to make out a case for lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- interpretation of 'or' as conjunctive
- burden of proof on petitioner
- lapse of acquisition requires both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession
