The court ruled that possession taken negates the lapse of acquisition proceedings, entitling Petitioners to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

MS Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule in each of these Petitions. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that substantially common issues of law and fact arise in these Petitions. Therefore, these petitions could be disposed of by a common order.

4. Initially, these Petitions were filed to obtain a declaration that the proceedings for the acquisition of the Petitioners’ lands have lapsed, given the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the said Act”). However, after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, etc. , [ AIR 2020 SC 1496 ], the Petitions were amended, and the Petitioners have sought a direction in terms of Section 24(2) of the said Act for determination and payment of compensation under the said Act, instead of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, under which the acquisition proceedings had commenced. Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, pressed only for relief in terms of the amended prayer clause (b-1).

5. The prayer clause (b-1) in both the Petitions is the same, except for the description of the Petitioners’ respective lands. Therefore, prayer clause (b-1) in Writ Petition No.3214 of 2019 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -

“(b-1) By a suitable Writ, Order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to determine the compensation and pass Award under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , in respect of the aforesaid land admeasuring 3 Hectares 34 Ares (i.e. H-0.92 Ares + H- 2.42 Ares) out of the Gat No.110 situated at Munguswadi, Taluka Ajara, District: Kolhapur.”

6. The Petitioners’ lands were notified under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1989 , for resettlement of persons affected by the Chitri Project vide a Notification dated 22 June 1992. A further Notification dated 16 March 1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , notified them of acquisition for the aforesaid purpose. A Section 6 Notification was issued on 02 July 1997, and ultimately, the land acquisition officer made an Award on 16 April 1999 for acquiring the Petitioners’ lands.

7. The Petitioners initially alleged that neither physical possession of their lands was taken nor compensation for their acquired lands was paid. Accordingly, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors., [ AIR 2014 SC 982 ], the petitioners urged that the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed, given the provisions of Section 24(1) of the said Act.

8. However, the third Respondent filed Affidavits in these Petitions on 11 July 2023 stating that though compensation was never paid to the Petitioners despite the Award dated 16 April 1999, still, the possession of the Petitioners’ lands was taken, and such lands were allotted to the project affected persons vide Sub- Divisional Officer’s order dated 17 February 2018. Accordingly, relying on the Indore Development Authority (supra) decision, the Respondents submitted that there was no lapsing of the acquisition.

9. The Petitioners have not filed an Affidavit in Rejoinder disputing the fact that the Respondents took over possession of the acquired lands. Instead, by accepting this position, the Petitioners amended the Petitions and sought relief in terms of the prayer clause (b-1) referred to above.

10. Section 24 of the said Act reads as follows: -

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedin