Case Note & Summary
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) appealed against an order of a learned Single Judge which held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy.No.80/1 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas at Thippasandra village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The BDA challenged this order, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, affirming the Single Judge's decision. The court found that the compensation had not been paid or deposited, and therefore the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The judgment was delivered on 08.12.2017 by Justices B.S. Patil and Aravind Kumar.
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 had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation - Held that where compensation has not been paid or deposited, the acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals, affirming the Single Judge's order that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Land acquisition proceedings lapse if compensation not paid or deposited
- Bangalore Development Authority Act
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (12) 7
Writ Appeal Nos.4426/2016 and 2129-2130/2017 (LA-BDA)
Sri.G S Kannur for appellant; Sri.D.Ashwathappa for R-1; Sri.M.V.Naveen Reddy for R-2 to R-4
Bangalore Development Authority
State of Karnataka, Sri.S.K.Parthasarathi Raju, Sri.C.Goutham, Sri.R.Saikumar Reddy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeals challenging the order of a learned Single Judge holding that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
BDA sought to set aside the Single Judge's order and dismiss the writ petitions.
Filing Reason
BDA appealed against the order declaring lapse of acquisition proceedings due to non-payment of compensation.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.1041-1043/2016 (LA-BDA) held that acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
Issues
Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Submissions/Arguments
BDA argued that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed.
Respondents argued that compensation was not paid, hence proceedings lapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, if compensation has not been paid or deposited, the acquisition proceedings lapse.
Judgment Excerpts
These appeals are preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) challenging the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge thereby holding that in view of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 particularly Section 24(2), the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land in question stood lapsed.
Procedural History
The learned Single Judge passed an order on 21.03.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.1041-1043/2016 (LA-BDA) holding that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. BDA filed these writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24(2)
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: 4
