The court established that possession taken and compensation paid prevent lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, emphasizing the need for both conditions to be unmet for any lapse to occur.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This writ appeal is preferred by the respondents in Writ Petition No.63796/2016 (LA-KHB) challenging the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri N.S.Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1[a to d] & caveator/respondent No.2 and Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant - Board initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of development of residential sites and to construct housing facilities. The acquisition proceedings commenced with an issuance of a Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act' for short) dated 23.06.1990, proposing acquisition of land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.22/2B. At the relevant time, revenue records indicated that the notified extent fell entirely within Sy.No.22/2.

A Durasti Phodi carried out in the year 1989 resulted in bifurcation of Sy.No.22/2. Consequent to this bifurcation, the acquired extent of 1 acre 11 guntas of land came to fall within the newly assigned Sy.No.22/2B. Upon this being brought to the notice of the authorities, the Final Notification dated 30.05.1993 under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act was issued specifically in respect of Sy.No.22/2B.

A Possession Certificate dated 11.11.1993 was thereafter issued under Section 16(2) of the 1894 Act, and the appellants were deemed to have taken possession of the acquired portion of land in Sy.No.22/2B as of that date. Owing to subsisting disputes regarding title over Sy.No.22/2B, the compensation amount relating to that survey number was deposited before the City Civil Court, Bangalore under Section 30(1) of the 1894 Act and the same was communicated to the Assistant Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, by letter dated 30.08.1996.

After a lapse of nearly 24 years from passing of the Final Notification, the respondents approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.63796/2016, the same was allowed by Order dated 08.08.2022. The learned Single Judge proceeded to quash and declare the lapse of acquisition proceedings insofar as the respondents’ property was concerned. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the respondents suppressed the material facts and that the writ petition was filed with mala fide intention to defraud the appellants. It is further contended that due to severe ill-health of the learned counsel on record, the appellants were ineffectively represented in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. As a result, they were unable to file objections to the writ petition and they could not effectively defend their case.

5. It is further contended that the 1 Acre 11 guntas of the acquired portion in Sy.No.22/2B was notified under the Final Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act and was reflected in the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops of that date. However, this was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Further, the finding of a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short), is in contravention to