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 was taken by the respondents nor was compensation paid to him. The respondents, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State of Karnataka, appeared through counsel and contested the petitions. The court examined the records produced by the respondents, which indicated that possession of the land was taken and compensation was paid to the petitioner. The court observed that the burden of proving non-payment of compensation or non-taking of possession lies on the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. The court also noted that the acquisition notification was issued in 1986, and the petitioner approached the court in 2018, after more than three decades, indicating delay and laches. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the acquisition had not lapsed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner sought declaration that acquisition of his land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, contending that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The Court held that the burden of proving non-payment of compensation or non-taking of possession lies on the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. (Paras 1-3)
B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Compensation - Evidence - The respondents produced records showing that possession of the land was taken and compensation was paid to the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner's bald assertions were insufficient to rebut the official records. (Paras 2-3)
C) Land Acquisition - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - The acquisition notification was issued in 1986, and the petitioner approached the court in 2018, after more than three decades. The Court noted that the petitioner slept over his rights and cannot now seek the benefit of deemed lapse. (Para 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 that neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The acquisition of the petitioner's land has not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Deemed lapse of acquisition
- Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act
- 2013
- Burden of proof on petitioner
- Possession taken
- Compensation paid
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 53
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 petitioner's application for transfer of Khatha to his name.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid, and therefore the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed 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 or non-taking of possession?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid, and there is no justification for not doing either.
Respondents produced records showing that possession was taken and compensation was paid.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proving non-payment of compensation or non-taking of possession under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 lies on the petitioner. The petitioner failed to discharge that burden, and the respondents' records showed that possession was taken and compensation was paid. Hence, the acquisition has not lapsed.
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.
After service of notice, the respondent No.1- BBMP having entered appearance through its panel counsel Sri H.Devendrappa; the respondent No.2-State of Karnataka has entered appearance through its learned HCGP Sri Dildar Shiralli.
The records produced by the respondents indicate that possession of the land was taken and compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the same.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in 2018 seeking declaration that the acquisition of his land under a notification dated 24.06.1986 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The respondents entered appearance and contested the petitions. 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)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
