Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claimants in land acquisition reference proceedings, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi, rejecting their interlocutory application I.A.No.5 in LAC No.1/2012 and clubbed petitions. The petitioners sought to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the Reference Court. The petitioners argued that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act), the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed as compensation had not been paid to them, and they were entitled to withdraw the deposited amount. The respondents opposed the application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act deems the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed if compensation has not been paid or deposited. The court noted that the deposit of compensation by the acquiring authority does not constitute payment to the claimants. Therefore, the claimants were entitled to withdraw the amount. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application, subject to the claimants furnishing an undertaking to repay the amount with interest if the reference proceedings are ultimately decided against them. The writ petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Proceedings - Section 24(2) proviso, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - The proviso to Section 24(2) deems land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed if compensation has not been paid or deposited. The court held that the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring authority, as the deposit does not amount to payment. The Reference Court's rejection of the application for withdrawal was set aside. (Paras 2-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Compensation - Interlocutory Application - The court allowed the withdrawal of compensation deposited in the Reference Court, directing the claimants to furnish an undertaking to repay if the proceedings are ultimately decided against them. The order was passed to balance the interests of both parties. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 entitles the claimants to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring authority, and whether the Reference Court erred in rejecting the application for withdrawal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, and allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring authority, subject to furnishing an undertaking to repay the amount with interest if the reference proceedings are ultimately decided against them.
Law Points
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Section 24(2) proviso
- Land acquisition proceedings lapse
- Withdrawal of compensation
- Reference Court
- Interlocutory application
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 78
Writ Petition Nos.106340-346 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Laxmesh Putta Mutaguppe (for petitioners), Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik (HCGP for R1), Sri. Ananth Hegde (for R2)
Smt. Radha Kom Satyanarayan Kodiya @ Radha D/o Madev Kodekelsi and others
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsi (U.K.) @ Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi and Manager, A.P.M.C. Siddapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Reference Court rejecting an application for withdrawal of compensation deposited in land acquisition reference proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed on I.A.No.5 in LAC No.1/2012 and clubbed petitions, and allowing the said I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioners.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, as claimants in land acquisition reference, sought to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring authority, relying on the proviso to Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which deems proceedings lapsed if compensation is not paid.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi) rejected I.A.No.5 by order dated 11.09.2018.
Issues
Whether the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 entitles the claimants to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring authority.
Whether the Reference Court erred in rejecting the application for withdrawal of compensation.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed as compensation had not been paid to them, and they were entitled to withdraw the deposited amount.
The respondents opposed the application, but the specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 deems land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed if compensation has not been paid or deposited. Deposit of compensation by the acquiring authority does not amount to payment to the claimants. Therefore, claimants are entitled to withdraw the deposited amount, subject to an undertaking to repay if the reference is decided against them.
Judgment Excerpts
The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ... and in the light of the proviso to sub-section 2 to Section 24 of the Act, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the acquiring authority, subject to the petitioners furnishing an undertaking to the effect that in case the reference proceedings are ultimately decided against them, they shall repay the amount with interest.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed I.A.No.5 in LAC No.1/2012 and clubbed petitions before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi, seeking withdrawal of compensation deposited by the acquiring authority. The Reference Court rejected the application by order dated 11.09.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
