IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Wahida Rahman D/o Late Ataur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India - Respondent
WP(C) 3379 of 2019
Decided on : 28-08-2023
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 – Land Acquisition – Claim Compensation - Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would be applicable to the instant case as regards land of Petitioner - Court further finds it relevant affidavit-in-opposition filed by Assistant Commissioner, , wherein at paragraph no.6 it was admitted that entire land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas was possessed by the Petitioner as reflected in Field Report submitted by the Lot Mondal. Para 5
Finding of the court: Court further finds it relevant to take into consideration affidavit-in-opposition filed by Assistant Commissioner, wherein at paragraph no.6 it was admitted that entire land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas was possessed by Petitioner as reflected in Field Report submitted - Name of Petitioner was not mutated in respect to said plot of land - A perusal of above section shows that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of Act of 2013, in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated where an Award under Sub-Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to Act of 2013 but physical possession of land had not been taken or compensation paid, said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with provisions of Act of 2013.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the acquisition of the land of the Petitioner in L.A. Case No.4/1979-80, whereby the land of the Petitioner was acquired.
2. The brief facts of the instant case is that the father of the Petitioner was the owner of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas under Dag No. 210 covered by Periodic Patta No.53 under Mouza – Maha Bhairabpad of Village No.1 Dulabari. An acquisition proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) which was registered and numbered as L.A. Case No.4/1979-80. Out of the said land of the petitioner, a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 17 Lechas was acquired and thereupon the revenue records were corrected in favour of N.F. Railway. It is relevant to take note of that though the land was acquired from the Petitioner neither the possession of the land was not taken nor the Petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest was paid compensation.
3. This Court further made a specific query upon Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department as to whether there is any document to show that any amount of compensation was deposited in the Court for acquiring the land of the petitioner. Mr. B.J. Talukdar submits that as per his instructions, no amount of compensation was also deposited in the Court for onward disbursement to the petitioner.
4. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Railway Authorities, wherein it has been mentioned at paragraph no.4 that it came to the knowledge of the Railway Authorities that after completion of the work, the land acquired on behalf of NEC was handed over to NERIWLM (North East Regional Institute of Water and Land Management), Tezpur, Assam. It was mentioned that if the land of Dag No. 210 of Periodic Patta No.53 of Village No.1 Dulabari under Bhairabpad Mouza is claimed by the Petitioner to be in her possession and if it is not under the occupation of the NERIWLM, then the land of Dag No. 210 under Periodic Patta No.53 of Village No.1 Dulabari by the Railway on behalf of NEC be corrected in favour of the Petitioner after due verification by the Revenue Authorities.
5. This Court further finds it relevant to take into consideration the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tezpur, wherein at paragraph no.6 it was admitted that the entire land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 2 Lechas was possessed by the Petitioner as reflected in the Field Report submitted by the Lot Mondal. However, the name of the Petitioner was not mutated in respect to the said plot of land.
6. Taking into account the above, this Court have also heard the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act of 2013”) would be applicable to the instant case as regards the land of the Petitioner.
7. Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the said Act being relevant is quoted hereinbelow :
“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisiti
SupremeToday
Land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) if possession has been taken and compensation remains unpaid, emphasizing the need for clear ownership to claim relief.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lapse of land acquisition is contingent upon the non-possession of land and non-payment or non-deposit of compensation, as clarified by....
The court established that for an acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be proven.
The fulfillment of conditions regarding possession and compensation is crucial in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
The court emphasized that the compensation amount being set apart and deposited in a Treasury account was sufficient to escape the rigour of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013.
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 does not confer a new cause of action to challenge concluded acquisition p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.