Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Petition filed to quash land acquisition notifications and declare acquisition lapsed; accused respondents of unlawful possession interference - Previous writ petition dismissed leading to res judicata application; possession taken, compensation paid does not permit claim of land lapse under Section 24(2) - Acquisition proceedings final; no right established over land by petitioner - Subsequent possession termed unauthorized, no merit for claim established. (Paras 1, 12, 14, 366.9)

Facts of the case:
Land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas acquired for society benefit; original owner’s father’s challenge to acquisition proceedings; settlement agreement acknowledged - Petitioner's claim of lapsing under Section 24(2) for lack of possession or compensation disputed.

Findings of Court:
Dismissal of writ petition upheld as original acquisition proceedings completed; res judicata applies on prior withdrawn petition.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given laches and res judicata principles.

Ratio Decidendi: Finality of previous acquisition proceedings prevails; independent claims under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 cannot revive concluded proceedings that had vested property with the State.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. land acquisition history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's assessment of maintainability. (Para 3 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments concerning land acquisition validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. principle of res judicata elucidated. (Para 10 , 11)
5. status of acquisition under law. (Para 12 , 13)
6. final ruling against the petitioner. (Para 14)

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the preliminary and final notification dated 11.02.1988 (Annexure-B) and 24.02.1989 (Annexure-C), issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act, 1894’ for short) and for declaration that the acquisition in respect of land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (‘petition land’ for short), has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for short). Further to declare that respondent No.3 has no legal right, title or interest over the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Jakkur Plantation, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per the settlement agreement dated 16.02.1994.

2. The petition land, originally belonged to the petitioner's father-J.M. Krishnappa, who had purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1962. The petition land was notified for acquisition in 1988-1989 for the benefit of the respondent No.3-society. Krishnappa challenged the said acquisition in W.P.No.7084/1989, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally on 13.11.1992. An award was passed on 11.12.1990, determining compensation at Rs 1,96,800/-, and possession of the land was delivered to the society on 02.09.1994 under an official memorandum.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding such a notification, a settlement agreement dated 16.02.1994 was entered into between her father and the office bearers of respondent No.3, by which 1 acre 10 guntas was released to him and that her family continued in peaceful possession thereafter. It is a case that the society, after 35 years, is now attempting to interfere with the possession without authority of law. It is the submission that the land acquisition proceedings has lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013, Act as neither possession was taken nor compensation paid in accordance with law. It is argued that the settlement agreement and the resolution of the society acknowledges release of 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of Krishnappa and is binding and conclusive.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is barred by res judicata, as W.P. No.7084/1989, filed by the petitioner's father against the same notifications, was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 13.11.1992. The general award was passed on 11.12.1990, and the possession was delivered to respondent No.3 on 02.09.1994. The compensation was received by J. M. Krishnappa in LAC No.221/1999 and Execution Case No.1/2005, which were recorded as ‘fully satisfied’.

6. It is submitted that the subsequent civil suit in O.S. No.3124/2009, filed by the petitioner’s family seeking injunction and later specific performance of the agreement dated 16.02.1994, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the judgment dated 20.12.2024, as being barred by limitation and based on an unenforceable agreement. It is contended that the alleged agreement dated 16.02.1994 is non est in law, having been executed after the land had vested in the State, and is therefore void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, being opposed to Public Policy. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others , (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority) contending that the acquisition cannot be deemed