Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, C.J., D.N.Ray, J.
Mohanbhai Narottambhai & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 15474 of 2016 With Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 15474 of 2016 With Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Dilip L Kanojiya, Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, Sr.Advocate With Mr.Aadit R Sanjanwala
For the Respondent: Ms.Hetal G.Patel, Agp, Mr Dhaval G Nanavati

Acquisition proceedings validated by an award and taking of possession (including paper possession) are concluded events. The deeming lapse provision under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies only to pending proceedings and cannot revive stale claims or invalidate legally vested land titles based on a landowner's refusal to accept compensation.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 11, 12(2), 16, 17(1), 17(4), 31(1), 31(2), 34 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Compulsory acquisition - Finality of land acquisition - Deemed lapse of proceedings - Whether acquisition lapseable due to alleged non-payment and non-possession - Held, acquisition proceedings under the earlier Act, once finalized through passing of award and taking of possession (including paper possession), vest land absolutely in the State - The deeming lapse provision under the 2013 Act is applicable only to pending proceedings and cannot be used to reopen or challenge concluded acquisitions which attained finality years prior to the enactment of the new law. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 24, 28, 40)

(B) Tender of compensation - Effect of refusal - Compensation is deemed “paid” when tendered to the landowner; refusal by the landowner to accept such compensation does not constitute ground for a lapse of acquisition proceedings under the law. (Paras 22, 24, 35)

(C) Possession - Mode of taking - Drawing of a memorandum or panchnama constitutes a valid and approved mode of taking possession in land acquisition matters, leading to absolute vesting of land in the State, and subsequent unauthorized occupation by former owners does not entitle them to relief under the lapse provisions. (Paras 7, 30, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings initiated for a public project, claiming that since compensation was not received and physical possession remained with them, the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under the provisions of the subsequent land acquisition legislation of 2013. The authorities contended that the award was made years ago, compensation was tendered but refused by the landholders, and possession was taken via official procedures, rendering the acquisition final.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings reached their logical end with the passing of the award and issuance of notices for tender of compensation and possession. The refusal of the landholders to accept the tendered compensation does not constitute a failure to pay. Furthermore, once possession is taken via established methods such as a panchnama, the land vests in the State, and the statutory lapse provision cannot be invoked to invalidate long-concluded acquisitions.

Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking of physical possession by the acquiring authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deeming provision for lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is specific to proceedings pending at the time of the commencement of the Act. As the proceedings in question were concluded with an award and vesting of land through state procedures, they are not subject to the lapse criteria of the new law. Tendering payment is sufficient to satisfy the statutory obligation, and a landowner cannot benefit from or rely upon their own refusal to accept compensation to seek a declaration of lapse.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Heard Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aadit R.Sanjanwala, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners herein claim of being owner of the land bearing Block No.17 of Mouje Asarma, Taluka Choryasi, Dist.Surat admeasuring 11,635 Sq.mtrs. It is stated in the writ petition that Block Nos. 1/P, 9/P, 10 to 20 and 64 of Village Asarma were reserved for Sewage Treatment Plant of the Surat Municipal Corporation. The notification for acquisition of the land in question under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act, 1894) was published on 28.11.2004, wherein Block Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Village Asarma were notified expressing intention to acquire the same. Section 6 Notification dated 19.04.2006 was published thereafter and the notice under Section 9(3)(iv) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 05.05.2006. There is no dispute about the fact that after making due inquiry, the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 21.04.2008 under Section 11 of the Act, 1894.

3. In paragraph No.‘10’ of the writ petition, there is a mention of three notices dated 13.03.2008, 24.11.2008 and notice dated Nil No. 2 of 2015.

4. A perusal of the notice dated 24.11.2008 at Page No. ‘38’ of the paper book (the type copy whereof is appended at Page No. ‘39A’ of the paper-book) indicates that there is a reference of the notice dated 21.04.2008 issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 to the petitioners, they were required to hand over possession of the land in question on or before 15.05.2008. The notice dated 24.11.2008 was a reminder to the notice dated 21.04.2008 wherein it was directed that the petitioners shall remove their possession from the acquired land by 09.12.2008 or else the proceedings for eviction would be undertaken on 10.12.2008, at the time fixed therein.

5. At this stage, we may note Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under :-

“12. Award of Collector when to be final

(1)Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2)The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.

6. Section 12 provides that the award made by the Collector shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, as to the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Section 12(1), thus, attaches finality to the land acquisition award passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. Sub section (2) of Section 12 further requires the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or by their representatives, at the time when the award was made.

7. The acquisition proceedings under Act, 1894 attains finality with the making of the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and after the award was passed, by taking possession of the land. Upon taking possession of the acquired land by the Collector, such land shall vest absolutely with the appropriate Government, free from all encumbrances in view of Section 16 of the Act, 1894. The mode of taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is normally by way of paper possession or drawing of panchnama and the said mode has been recognized as an approved mode of taking possession by the Hon’ble Apex Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1216

Cases Referred (2)