Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sudheer Prabhakar Desai, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of his land bearing Survey No. 112/0 in Village Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa, for road construction. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 4.11.2003, followed by a Section 6 notification on 9.3.2005, and an Award on 27.4.2007. However, the compensation was neither paid nor deposited, and possession of the land was not taken by the acquiring department. The petitioner received information on 6.1.2011 that no compensation had been forwarded and possession was not taken. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 1.1.2014. The petitioner argued that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings lapsed as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The respondents contended that the Award was passed before the new Act and the proceedings were valid. The court, relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, held that since neither compensation was paid nor possession taken, the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court allowed the petition, quashing the notifications and award, and directed the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition if needed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court considered whether acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse if compensation is not paid and possession is not taken before the new Act came into force on 1.1.2014. The court held that since neither compensation was paid nor possession taken, the proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken before the commencement of the new Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Section 4 notification dated 4.11.2003, Section 6 notification dated 9.3.2005, and Award dated 27.4.2007, and declared that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents were directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings if necessary.
Law Points
- Land acquisition lapses if compensation not paid and possession not taken before new Act comes into force
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 Sections 4 and 6
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 126
WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2014
F.M. REIS, PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN
Mr. D. J. Pangam for petitioner, Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande with Mr. P. Dangui for respondents
State of Goa, Under Secretary (Revenue), Principal Chief Engineer, Chief Electrical Engineer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and seeking declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Section 4 notification dated 4.11.2003, Section 6 notification dated 9.3.2005, and Award dated 27.4.2007, and declaration that acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Filing Reason
Compensation was not paid and possession was not taken despite the Award, and the new Act of 2013 came into force, causing the acquisition to lapse.
Previous Decisions
Award passed on 27.4.2007; compensation not paid; possession not taken; information received on 6.1.2011 that no compensation forwarded and possession not taken.
Issues
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken before the commencement of the new Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since compensation was not paid and possession was not taken, the acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
Respondents contended that the Award was passed before the new Act and the proceedings were valid, but did not dispute the facts of non-payment and non-taking of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the new Act but compensation has not been paid or possession not taken, the proceedings lapse. In this case, the Award was made on 27.4.2007, more than five years before 1.1.2014, and neither compensation was paid nor possession taken, hence the acquisition lapsed.
Judgment Excerpts
In the above petition, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a direction to quash and set aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 4.11.2003, as well as the subsequent Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 and the Award dated 27/04/2007.
The facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 came to be published on 4/11/2003... Thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was published on 9/3/2005. After, complying with the formalities under the said Act of 1894, an Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) on 27/04/2007.
It is further pointed out that in the records of the LAO, there is also a Roznama entry on 6/1/2011, inter alia, stating that no compensation has been forwarded by the Acquiring Department.
The petitioner also received the information on 06.01.2011 that the possession of the said land was not taken by the LAO.
In the light of the above, the acquisition proceedings in the present case would lapse in view of Section 24(2) of the Acquisition Act of 2013.
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 4.11.2003; Section 6 notification published on 9.3.2005; Award passed on 27.4.2007; compensation not paid and possession not taken; petitioner filed writ petition in 2014 after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 1.1.2014; judgment delivered on 9.6.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
