JUDGEMENT

1. Heard.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 13.8.2020, passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.3921 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking relief in the nature of lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated against them earlier, by invoking section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013'), has been dismissed by holding that the compensation was tendered by notice issued under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The contention of the appellants is that there is no evidence available on record that the said notice was ever served to the predecessor in title of the land in question from whom the appellants derive their title.

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the father of the appellants late Shri Ranchod Patidar was the owner of an agricultural land situated at Survey No.86/1 ad-measuring 1.206 hectare at Gram Nisarpur, Tehsil Kukshi, District Dhar. On 9.2.2002 the aforesaid land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of rehabilitation of oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project and an award in case No.21/A82/2000-01 was passed under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is alleged that on 21.10.2002, a notice under section 12 was issued to the father of the appellants, however, it was never served on him and subsequently Shri Ranchod Patidar, the predecessor in title executed a Will and bequeathed the land in question to the appellants on 29.11.2022, thus, the appellants have become the owners of the land. It is further the case of the appellants that On 1.1.2014, the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 was enforced, and section 24 of which provides for lapse of land acquisition proceedings under certain circumstances. As per sub-section (2) of s.24, the land acquisition proceedings shall lapse in the circumstances when neither possession was taken over nor compensation was paid in pursuance of the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and according to the appellants, despite acquisition of the land on 9.2.2002, within the period of five years therefrom, neither compensation was paid to the appellants nor the possession was taken over from them, hence, a right has accrued to them regarding lapse of acquisition proceedings and since the respondents were trying to take over the possession of the land forcefully, hence, W.P. No.3921 of 2017 was filed before this Court in which on 4.4.2019, a reply was also filed by the State and it was admitted that neither the possession has been taken over nor compensation has been paid. A rejoinder in the aforesaid writ petition was also filed by the appellants stating that a notice under section 12 was never served to the father of the appellants and nor the compensation amount was ever tendered nor offered nor received by the father of the appellants, but the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by the writ Court vide the impugned order dated 13.8.2020. Hence, this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no evidence available on record to show that the compensation amount was ever tendered or offered as per section 31 (1) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in its absence, it cannot be said that the compensation amount was tendered to the predecessor in title of the land in question. It is further submitted that the learned Judge of the writ Court has wrongly held that the notice dated 21.10.2002, which has been filed as Annexure R/3 was duly served to the father of the appellants, as to support this finding there is no evidence available on record in the form of any acknowledgment of the service of the notice on the father of the appellants or any other male members of the family nor any other documents evidencing the s