Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Motibhai Ambabhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 20281 of 2019, Civil Application (For Withdrawal of Matter) No. 1 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 20281 of 2019, Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 2 of 2023, Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 3 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 20281 of 2019
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr C B Upadhyaya
For the Respondent: Mr. K.M. Antani, AGP,

Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings after the issuance of Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The requirements for the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 must be fulfilled, and the expression 'paid' under the Act, 2013 means that the obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11, Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 - [KEYWORD] - Land Acquisition - 2013 Act, Section 24(2), 1894 Act, Section 11, Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy Act - The court discussed the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and the settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings after the issuance of Section 4 notification. The court also interpreted the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and clarified that both the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 24 have to be fulfilled for the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The court emphasized that once possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The court also clarified that the expression 'paid' under the Act, 2013 means that the obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act. The court held that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court concluded that the claim of the original writ petitioners of the proceedings having been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, itself was devoid of merit.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioners sought to challenge the land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013, claiming that the proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. Subsequent purchasers also sought to join as parties and pursue the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claim of the original writ petitioners regarding the lapse of the proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 was devoid of merit. The court also held that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings after the issuance of Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the rights of subsequent purchasers to challenge acquisition proceedings, and the legitimacy of the claims made by the original writ petitioners and subsequent purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the requirements for the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and emphasized that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings after the issuance of Section 4 notification. The court also interpreted the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and the expression 'paid' under the Act, 2013.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applications of subsequent purchasers to join as parties and pursue the writ petition. The withdrawal application filed by the original writ petitioners was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking reliefs as under : -

“7(A) To quash and set aside communication dated 09.09.2019 addressed by Special Land Acquisition Officer and may further be pleased to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiate within the purview of the old Act by virtue of LAQ Case No. 8 of 1991 has deemed to have been lapsed by operation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and may further be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to issue appropriate notification to that effect;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the Respondents herein from disturbing the possession of the present petitioners qua land bearing Survey No. 60, Village Sargasan, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, admeasuring about 25,448 sq. Meters of land.”

2. The writ petitioners herein who claimed to be heirs and legal representatives of the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 60, Village Sargasan, Taluka and District Gandhinagar admeasuring 25,448 sq. meters of land (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’), seek the above-noted relief on the premise that neither the physical possession of the acquired land (in-question) has been taken nor compensation has been paid. The land acquisition proceedings, would, therefore, lapse in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013).

3. The application for withdrawal being Civil Application No. 1 of 2023 in the main matter, i.e. writ petition has been filed by the petitioners supported with the affidavit of one of the writ petitioner stating therein that the petitioners do not want to pursue the writ petition as they seek to avail remedy under law by approaching the competent authorities. The statement in the affidavit (accompanying withdrawal application) is that the petitioners had executed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Power of Attorney in favour of two persons namely Jayeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Ms. Heenaben Hareshbhai Patel. However, the said agreement had been cancelled by the petitioners on 09.06.2022 and the notice, in this regard, has been duly served upon the aforesaid persons. A copy of the notice of cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding and the Power of Attorney is appended therein.

4. Civil Application No. 2 of 2023 has been filed by two persons namely Heenaben Hareshbhai Patel and Jayeshbhai Ambalal Patel for joining as parties, as the writ petitioners, in the instant petition. Another Civil Application No. 3 of 2023 has been filed by one Darshini Bakulbhai Chaturvedi seeking to join as party, as writ petitioner, in the writ petition.

5. In Civil Application No. 2 of 2023, the applicants therein seek to assert their right in the land-in-question on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2018, with the assertion that right qua the property had been transferred in their favour. Payment of consideration under the agreement to sell of consideration has also been made by the applicants. It is stated that, in case, the original writ petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petition, the applicants herein would be adversely effected. It is stated that the original writ petitioners have orchestrated the present ploy in order to dupe the applicants herein with one Mrs. Darshini Upadhyaya, who claim to have entered into subsequent agreement with the original writ petitioners. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 3.5 crores has been paid to the original petitioners by two applicants as well as by Mrs. Darshini Upadhyaya. Now with the withdrawal of the writ petition, the present applicants would be rendered remediless. It is further stated that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties, in case, the