1. Challenge to eviction notices after land acquisition award — Claim of continued possession and lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15874
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
N.Ramalakshumma – Appellant
Versus
The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd – Respondent
WP 22682/2014
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L.J. Veera Reddy
For the Respondents: N. Jeevan Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L.J. Veera Reddy
For the Respondents: N. Jeevan Kumar
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only if both compensation was not paid and physical possession was not taken. If either occurred, the acquisition remains valid and subsequent occupation by the landowner is illegal.
Headnote:(A) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings - The expression "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as "nor" or "and" - Deemed lapse takes place only where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid - If possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid, or if compensation has been paid even if possession has not been taken, there is no lapse (Paras 26)
(B) Possession of acquired land - The normal mode of taking possession is by drawing of a panchnama/inquest report/memorandum - Once an award has been passed and possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State and there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - Any subsequent possession by the landowner after the completion of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation is illegal and unauthorized and does not create any legally enforceable right to retain the land (Paras 26, 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired under the 1894 Act for mining purposes, and an award was passed with compensation paid to the landowners. The authorities recorded that physical possession had been taken and mutation of records was effected. The landowners continued to occupy the land and eventually challenged notices issued by the authorities directing them to vacate the site. They contended that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because they were never physically dispossessed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the landowners had received the compensation and the authorities had formally taken possession as per revenue records. Following the verdict of the Constitution Bench, the court held that since compensation was paid and possession was taken, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under the 2013 Act.
Issues: Whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in circumstances where compensation has been paid and possession has been taken by the state authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: Acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act only lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if both the taking of possession and the payment of compensation failed to occur for five years or more prior to the 2013 Act's commencement. If either condition is satisfied, the acquisition is valid. Any subsequent occupation by the original owner is deemed trespass and unauthorized as the title has already vested in the State.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
-
statutory interpretation
- section 24(2) of the 2013 act (Para 26)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue possession not taken and acquisition lapsed; respondents argue possession taken, compensation paid, petitioners are trespassers. (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
3. Court held that under Indore Development Authority, if possession taken or compensation paid, no lapse under Section 24(2). Petitioners failed to rebut evidence of possession taken. (Para 20 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 33 )
4. For lapse under Section 24(2), both non-takeover of possession and non-payment of compensation must occur; otherwise no lapse. Land vests in State upon award and possession. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated. (Para 34 )
6. What is the correct interpretation of 'or' in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
The word 'or' between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or 'and', so lapse occurs only if both possession not taken and compensation not paid. (Para 26 )
7. Does taking possession under the 1894 Act divest the landowner of title?
Yes, once award passed and possession taken, land vests in State; subsequent possession by the landowner is illegal and confers no rights. (Para 30 , 31 )
8. Can a landowner claim lapse under Section 24(2) if compensation was paid but possession not taken?
No, if compensation has been paid, there is no lapse even if possession not taken. (Para 26 )
9. Is the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation still good law?
No, it was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. (Para 25 , 26 )
10. What is the effect of non-rebuttal of counter-affidavit averments?
The court deems admitted that possession was taken and petitioners are trespassers, leading to dismissal. (Para 22 )
COMMON ORDER:
1. Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2. Common facts and common issues are involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions. Therefore, for the purpose of narration of facts, the facts mentioned in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 are referred to in this Order.
3. The Prayer in Writ Petition No.27043 of 2014 is as follows:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased, to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 3rd respondent in directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of land of 0.54 Acres in Sy. No. 39/10 of Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R.District vide notice under Ref. No. APMDC/LA/StructuresNotice/ dated 10.12.2013 though award is dated 04.09.2002 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against statutory provisions including Sec 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently set-aside the notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice/ dated 10.12.2013 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. The above Prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has received the Impugned Notice issued by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDC) (Respondent No.1), bearing Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.P.1). The Writ Petitioners in the other Writ Petitions have also received similar Notices, which have been challenged in the present batch of Writ Petitions.
Facts in Writ Petition No.27043 of 2014:-
5. The facts that emerge in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 are that the father of the Writ Petitioner possessed patta land of an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in Sy. No. 39/10 of Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R. District; that the father of the Writ Petitioner also possessed a house in the same location; that at the behest of Respondent No.1, the Land Acquisition Officer (Respondent No. 2) has initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2003; that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of mining 'barytes' by Respondent No.1; that an extent of Ac.0.54 cents and the house belonging to the father of the Writ Petitioner were taken over by Respondent No.2 in the year 2012 itself; that on 04.09.2002, Award No.H.88/2001 was passed, thereby fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.450 per each cent, which was paid to the father of the Writ Petitioner; that the father of the Writ Petitioner had received the compensation under protest; that despite the fact that the land was taken long ago, the Writ Petitioner would contend that he and the other Writ Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions were never dispossessed of the land and continued to carry on agricultural activities in the acquired land; and that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 would contend that he has been raising paddy crop in the subject land.
6. The facts in this Writ Petition would further indicate that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 issued the Impugned Notice bearing Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice/ dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.P.1), directing the Writ Petitioners to vacate the site on or before July 2014; that since no action was taken from the date of issuance of the Impugned Notice on 10.12.2013 till July 2014, the Writ Petitioners continued to enjoy the subject land; and that in the month of August 2014, when Respondent Nos.1 and 3 insisted on handing over possession of the land, the Writ Petitioners had faced the threat of dispossession by police force. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions have approached this Court by filing the present batch of Writ Petitions.
