Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Matheim Linggi, S/o. Shri Ginko Linggi and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, A.P. and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.24 Of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction for 100% solatium and 12% interest under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for the acquisition of their land. The respondents had acquired the land for a project under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and had paid compensation, but the petitioners claimed discrimination as other landowners in a similar project were compensated under the 2013 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition process had not lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation, as the compensation had been tendered to the petitioners and possession of the land had been taken by the Land Acquisition Authority. The court also held that the petition was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the issues raised in the present petition were not directly and substantially in issue in the previous writ petition. Additionally, the court found no substance in the claim of discrimination as the acquisition process had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the compensation was determined based on the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Issues: The issues were whether the acquisition process had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and whether the petitioners had been discriminated against by the authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition process had not lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the compensation had been tendered to the petitioners and possession of the land had been taken by the Land Acquisition Authority. The court also found that the petition was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the issues raised in the present petition were not directly and substantially in issue in the previous writ petition. Additionally, the court found no substance in the claim of discrimination as the acquisition process had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the compensation was determined based on the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. I. Riam, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, eight petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.1, the Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District, to grant solatium @ 100% of the compensation amount and 12% interest per annum with effect from 10.08.2017 to 10.10.2018, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in terms of award dated 28.03.2013.
3. The background facts, necessary for proper appreciation of the dispute in the case in hand, are adumbrated here in below:-
4. The respondents No. 3 & 4, on receipt of notice, entered appearance and submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that :-
(ii) That, as the issue raised in this petition was directly and substantially was in issue in WP (C) No. 645(AP) 2017, between the same parties, and the petitioners have failed to raise such issue in the previous writ petition, the present petition is barred by doctrine of waiver, ac
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
The physical possession of the land and tendering of compensation discharge the state's obligation, and the land essential for public purpose cannot be released from acquisition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and compensation payme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
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....
The petition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 must meet the gap period of five years, and the physical possession and compensation tender must be valid. The essentiality of the land for public ....
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
