Acquisition proceedings remain valid if compensation is deposited in court, despite non-payment to the claimant.

1. The petitioner, owner of a certain extent of land comprised of Survey No. 287/5/1 in Mazhuvannoor Village, is facing an ex - propriatory action with respect to his property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The disquiet that would be caused to a person facing such proceeding is obvious and, therefore, it was perhaps concedes justification to him in having litigated against such acquisition continuously. He had been doing so and he had filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds.

2. He has alleged that the acquisition was illegal and that it was unnecessary in the circumstances available since his property being acquired only for the purpose of construction of the Well for the 4th respondent, KINFRA. He also maintains that the acquisition is being made not for a public purpose but for the benefit of KINFRA which is established for the purpose of commercial activity.

3. I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr.Jayakumar assisted by Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

4. On the factual underpinning that this writ petition was filed early as in the year 2005 and that an interim order had been issued by this Court on 24/01/2005, interdicting the taking over of possession of property if it had not already been done, the petitioner asserts that his property is still in his possession and he maintains that it was never taken possession of by the authorities. This is contradicted very vehemently by the learned Government Pleader who says that contrary to this assertion of the petitioner, the property was taken over and that the same is now in the possession of the Government. Acting under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is proscribed from entering into any enquiry on facts as to whether the property has been taken possession or otherwise and unfortunately for the petitioner, the mechanism available to this Court jurisdictionally to look into these issues is completely circumscribed within a strict and short perimeter. I cannot travel beyond the jurisdictional limits of the powers available under the Constitution while considering disputed questions of facts under Art.226 of the Constitution. I therefore, leave it there for now to be dealt with little lower in this judgment but I record the submissions of both sides, which are conflicting with each other, regarding the possession and taking over of the property.

5. While this writ petition was pending, the petitioner obtained a much more potent weapon to challenge the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the new Act, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Fair Compensation Act' for the purpose of brevity). According to him, the acquisition has now lapsed because of the play of S.24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act on the ground that since the amounts under the award had not been paid to the petitioner or offered to him, the entire proceedings would have to be deemed to have lapsed. The petitioner relies specifically on the provisions of the said Section to show that he had never been offered the compensation determined under the award and that the amounts were deposited by the District Collector without first offering it to him under the provisions of S.31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

6. Since the entire edifice of t