No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Article 300-A rights.

JUDGEMENT :

(Per Justice Manish Pitale)

1.The petitioner in this petition contends that in the light of an admitted position on facts that the subject land located in Survey No.106/6 was never acquired and compensation was not paid, the respondents need to undertake steps for acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). It is the case of the petitioner that even though notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) and declaration under Section 6 thereof were issued in the context of the said land, for acquisition along with other pieces of land, award regarding the same was never declared; Compensation was not determined and possession was also not taken as per law. Therefore, the proceedings had clearly lapsed, requiring appropriate proceedings to be undertaken for acquisition in accordance with law.

2. The relevant sequence of events leading to filing of the present petition is that, on 24.09.1986, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, notifying several pieces of land in Village Karave, Taluka and District Thane, for the public purpose of proposed ‘New Town’ to be known as ‘Navi Mumbai’. The subject land was covered under the said notification. On 14.09.1987, declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued, which referred to the subject land also. On 12.08.1988, notices were issued under Section 9 of the L.A. Act, notifying claims for compensation. The notice was served upon the mother of the petitioner. During the said period, the petitioner was a minor. The statement of the petitioner’s mother was recorded on a printed form. Such statements were obtained from all the members of the family of the petitioner, whose lands were intended to be acquired.

3. On 31.08.1989, award was declared under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. In the award, there was no mention of the subject property in the valuation column and compensation for the said land was also not determined. In October 1989, notices under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act were issued for receiving compensation. On 09.07.1990, possession receipt was executed. The documents show that while possession of the adjoining lands was taken, possession of the subject land was not taken by the respondent authorities.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was an illiterate person and when he attained majority and pursued the matter, information was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Such information revealed that beyond declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, no action was taken in respect of the subject land situated in Survey No.106/6 and that, it was never made part of the aforesaid award dated 31.08.1989. The petitioner also approached the office of the City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO) and it was confirmed that neither an award was declared in respect of the subject land nor any compensation was determined or paid. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and the declaration under Section 6 thereof and also for a direction to the respondents to treat the said land as not having been acquired. The petitioner further claims the aforesaid direction to the respondents for acquiring the land under the Ac