Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Joaquim Victor Fernandes, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings for his plot No. 34 admeasuring 486 square metres in Dona Paula, Goa, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land was originally notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8 July 1965, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 2 May 1968, and an award was passed on 28 March 1969. The petitioner purchased the plot on 24 December 1980 and later faced an encroachment inquiry, which was terminated in his favour. After the 2013 Act came into force, the petitioner made a representation claiming that the acquisition had lapsed because possession was never taken and compensation was not paid. The respondents filed a reply affidavit asserting that possession was taken on 28 March 1969 and that compensation was paid to the original owner, but they could not produce any documentary evidence such as a panchanama or possession receipt. The court examined the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which states that if an award under the 1894 Act was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The court found that the award was made on 28 March 1969, more than five years before the 2013 Act came into force. The respondents failed to prove that possession was actually taken, as no contemporaneous document was produced. The court also noted that the respondents admitted that compensation was not paid to the petitioner or deposited in court. Therefore, the court held that both conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were satisfied. The court allowed the petition, declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, and directed the respondents to return the land to the petitioner if they were in possession, or to treat the petitioner as the owner. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioner sought declaration that acquisition proceedings for his plot had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as possession was never taken and compensation was not paid. The Court held that since the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and neither possession was taken nor compensation paid, the proceedings had lapsed. (Paras 2-10) B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The respondents claimed possession was taken but failed to produce any evidence such as panchanama or possession receipt. The Court held that mere entries in revenue records are insufficient to prove actual possession. (Paras 7-9) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The respondents admitted that compensation was not paid to the petitioner or deposited in court. The Court held that non-payment of compensation is a ground for lapse under Section 24(2). (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated 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, as possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's plot No.34 admeasuring 486 square metres in Dona Paula, Survey No.248/1 of village Taleigao, Goa, are declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents are directed to return the land to the petitioner if they are in possession, or to treat the petitioner as the owner. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Lapse of acquisition proceedings
- Possession not taken
- Compensation not paid
