Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramchandra Jamnadas Sadriwala, filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Surat Municipal Corporation in respect of his property situated at Ward No.7, House No.7/4194, A/1, Near Vegetable Market, Gale Mandi, Main Road, Surat, admeasuring 56.8569 square meters, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The petitioner also sought release of the property from acquisition and a restraint on dispossession. The petition was filed in 2018, and the court noted that the issue regarding the scope of Section 24(2) was pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. However, the court proceeded to examine the merits. The court observed that the petitioner had not placed on record any material to demonstrate that the award was not made or that possession was not taken within the stipulated period. The burden of proof to establish the lapse under Section 24(2) lies on the petitioner, and in the absence of any evidence, the petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner sought declaration that acquisition proceedings had 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 neither compensation was paid nor possession taken. The Court held that the burden lies on the petitioner to establish non-compliance with the conditions of Section 24(2). Since the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that the award was not made or possession not taken within five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's property 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.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013
- Land acquisition lapse
- Burden of proof on petitioner
- Award and possession requirements
