Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Bablu - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 31 of 2020
Decided On : 04-07-2024
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 24(1), 24(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the new Act, emphasizing that compensation paid negates the claim for possession under the old Act, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to reclaim land acquired in 1962, arguing that the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the new Act due to non-physical possession. The respondents contended that compensation was paid and possession taken, thus the acquisition was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, having suppressed material facts, and that the compensation had been paid, which negated the claim for possession under the new Act.
Issues: Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the new Act due to non-physical possession and whether the petitioner was entitled to reclaim the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since compensation was paid and possession taken, the provisions of the new Act did not apply, and the petitioner's claim was dismissed.
Result: The Special Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
The instant Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2019, in WPMS No. 3366 of 2016, Bablu Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), since the petitioner has not come up with clean hands and has not disclosed about filing of earlier writ petition which was in fact brought to the notice to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The delay was already condoned by this Court on 09.05.2022 and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, since the present Special Appeal is pending since 2020, the same is being decided at the admission stage itself.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant herein preferred the writ petition with the following reliefs:-
(ii) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.
(iii) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”
4. The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to acquisition of land for which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Old Act”) was issued on 15.11.1961. Subsequently, the urgency clause was also invoked under the Old Act on 31.01.1962 and Section 6 Notification under the Old Act was issued on 08.02.1962.
5. The petitioner approached this Court pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.10.2016 passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 29801/2016, whereby the liberty was given to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
6. The stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s ancestral land located in khasra No. 157 to 162 of Village Ranipur, District Haridwar, State of Uttarakhand was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1962 by invoking urgency clause and further he contended in para 5 to 7 of the petition that the award was also passed and compensation was paid; however, the physical possession of the land was not taken and the petitioner and his predecessor’s interest have remained in continuous uninterrupted possession of the land and have been carrying out agricultural activities on the said land and in the year 2013, the Old Act i.e. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. In para 8 of the writ petition, he has given reference of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In para 9 of the petition, it is further contended that though the urgency clause of Section 17 was invoked and the award was passed and the physical possession of the land in question has not been taken over therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
8. A further reference has been made that when the petitioner obtained the copy of the Khatauni, then he was shocked to find out that the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 02.02.2007 directed that the land will remain acquired and the name of the petitioner will not be added in the record as bhumidhar and aggrieved by the same, a Revision Petition
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
No lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) if compensation paid despite no possession; 30-year delay perfects adverse possession title, barring enforcement.
Possession taken under land acquisition negates the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, reaffirming that acquisition processes must adhere to statutory guidelines of compensatio....
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
