Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Lapse of Award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act - Main Points and Insights
The provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act specify that if the award is not made within one year from 1st January 2014 (the commencement date), the proceedings do not automatically lapse, but the compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act ["Adhigrahan Kariba Bichara Krishi Bhumir Usit Mulya Dabi Sangram Samiti VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"] ["Government of NCT of Delhi VS Dayanand - Supreme Court"] ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Rati Ram - Supreme Court"].
If the award was passed within five years (excluding periods under court orders), proceedings are deemed to continue under the old Act as if it has not been repealed, and the acquisition does not lapse ["Adhigrahan Kariba Bichara Krishi Bhumir Usit Mulya Dabi Sangram Samiti VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"] ["Govt. of NCT of Delhi VS Rati Ram - Supreme Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The key criterion for lapse under Section 24(2) is the failure to pass an award and take possession within the specified period (usually five years) under the old Act or within one year from 2014 under the 2013 Act ["THE CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED vs B.M.PURNACHANDRAN - Madras"].
References:["Arun Sitaram Patil VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]["THE CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED vs B.M.PURNACHANDRAN - Madras"]["Bhimavarapu Nagi Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]["State of West Bengal VS Bivash Chandra Sarkar - Calcutta"]["Adhigrahan Kariba Bichara Krishi Bhumir Usit Mulya Dabi Sangram Samiti VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"]["B.Ambujabani vs The State of Tamilnadu - Madras"]["Lucknow Development Authority VS Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. LRs. - Supreme Court"]["Basanti Sen VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"]["Government of NCT of Delhi VS Dayanand - Supreme Court"]["BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]["B.Ambujabani vs The State of Tamilnadu - Madras"]["Matheim Linggi, S/o. Shri Ginko Linggi VS Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, A. P. - Gauhati"]["Government of NCT of Delhi VS Manjeet Singh Anand - Supreme Court"]["Delhi Development Authority VS Asha Jain - Supreme Court"]
Land acquisition in India has long been a contentious issue, balancing public infrastructure needs with landowners' rights. A common query arises: lapse of award under sec 25 of 2013 land acquisition act madras high court. This question typically probes whether acquisition proceedings fail if awards aren't passed timely under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). While Section 25 mandates awards within 12 months from the declaration under Section 19, much judicial scrutiny—especially from the Madras High Court and Supreme Court—centers on transitional provisions like Section 24(2). This post breaks down the rules, key rulings, and practical implications, drawing from landmark cases. Note: This is general information based on case law; consult a legal expert for specific advice.
The 2013 Act replaced the outdated Land Acquisition Act, 1894, introducing stricter timelines to curb prolonged acquisitions. Section 25 requires the Collector to pass an award within 12 months from the publication of the declaration under Section 19; failure leads to lapse of the entire proceedings. This mirrors the old Section 11A but with enhanced protections.
However, Section 24(2)—a transitional clause—addresses pre-2013 Act proceedings: If an award... was made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act 01.01.2014, and... physical possession... has not been taken nor compensation has been paid, the proceedings deem to have lapsedSOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258. The five-year period counts from the award date under Section 11 of the 1894 Act SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258.
If these aren't met, proceedings lapse automatically—a deeming fiction to nullify stale claims SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. VS Tarun Pal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1732. Conversely, awards within the 5-year window preserve proceedings, subject to compliance Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. VS Tarun Pal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1732.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted these provisions. In Sukhbir Singh, it held that proceedings under the 1894 Act not culminating in an award within 5 years prior to 01.01.2014 lapse DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SUKHBIR SINGH - 2016 7 Supreme 7. Mere non-payment... does not automatically lapse proceedings unless the award was made more than five years before SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258.
Fresh acquisitions under the 2013 Act trigger Section 25's 12-month rule directly. States must initiate anew post-lapse, applying enhanced compensation and rehabilitation SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258.
While direct Madras High Court rulings on Section 25 lapses are contextualized within broader acquisition laws, cases under Tamil Nadu-specific statutes provide clarity. In proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, petitioners argued lapse due to no award after four years, akin to Section 11A/25 timelines. The court rejected this: The Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not stipulate any period of limitation, between Notification under Section 15(1)... and passing of orders under Section 19(1)... Hence the question of lapse does not ariseS. N. Sumathi VS State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1538. Lands vested post-notification, free from encumbrances, emphasizing the Act's intent to expedite highway projects without 1894 Act constraints.
This contrasts with pure 2013 Act applications. Another Madras-linked reference notes: The provisions similar to Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act... has been incorporated in Sec.25 of the... 2013 Act, whereby... if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings... shall lapseCaritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr. Anthony Raj VS Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1095. Thus, for 2013 Act proceedings, strict adherence is mandatory.
Section 24(2) primarily targets 1894 Act proceedings but influences state laws referencing it. In Karnataka cases (analogous to Tamil Nadu scenarios), courts held Section 24 applies to Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (KUDA) acquisitions: Sec. 24(2)... provides for lapse... if the award... passed five years or more prior to... 1/1/2009; physical possession... not taken; compensation not paidBengaluru Development Authority VS Vishwanatha Reddy - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 919K. M. Chikkathayamma VS State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 36. However, post-01.01.2014 incomplete proceedings under such Acts fall under the 2013 Act entirely Bengaluru Development Authority VS Vishwanatha Reddy - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 919.
Exceptions and Limitations:- Awards <5 years pre-2014: No lapse SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258.- Court deposits insufficient; actual payment needed DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SUKHBIR SINGH - 2016 7 Supreme 7.- Highways/Industrial Acts may lack lapse provisions, vesting lands early S. N. Sumathi VS State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1538Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr. Anthony Raj VS Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1095.- Deeming fiction doesn't apply to concluded or post-2013 initiations Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. VS Tarun Pal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1732.
In one Tripura case (illustrative), courts enhanced compensation post-acquisition, applying Sections 23/34, showing post-lapse remedies focus on fair value Tapan Lal Bhowmik son of late Kaillash Chandra Bhowmik VS State of Tripura - 2018 Supreme(Tri) 189.
In conclusion, lapse under Section 25 (or transitional 24(2)) hinges on timelines, possession, and payment. While Madras HC upholds expedited state laws, the 2013 Act prioritizes fairness, often requiring fresh starts. Stay informed, document everything, and seek professional counsel for your case.
References: SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2015 6 Supreme 258, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. VS Tarun Pal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1732, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SUKHBIR SINGH - 2016 7 Supreme 7, Pune Municipal Corporation VS Harakchand Misirimal Solanki - 2014 1 Supreme 508, S. N. Sumathi VS State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1538, Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr. Anthony Raj VS Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1095, Bengaluru Development Authority VS Vishwanatha Reddy - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 919, K. M. Chikkathayamma VS State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 36, Tapan Lal Bhowmik son of late Kaillash Chandra Bhowmik VS State of Tripura - 2018 Supreme(Tri) 189.
#LandAcquisition #Section25Lapse #MadrasHC
The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act") was published on 18/4/2010, which was followed by notification dtd. 4/7/2011 under Sec. 6 of the old Act. The award dtd. 29/11/2013 came to be passed under Sec. 11A of the old Act. ... /2001 under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act dtd. 29/11/201....
(3) Condition III: Lapse of Acquisition After 5 Years Without Possession or Compensation If an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act, but either physical possession ... Scope of lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, is to be made clear in view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the subsequent j....
LAND ACQUISITION ACT , as if the said Act has not been repealed. ... - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), - (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition ... No.10516 of 2017 before this Court. The contention of the appellant was that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transpar....
would be at a disadvantage as an award beyond the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act would be valid. ... Consequently, we hold that in cases covered by clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act ....
Under the provision of Section 24(1)(A), in case the award is not made as of 01.01.2014, i.e., the date of commencement of the Act, 2013, there is no lapse of proceeding. However, compensation is to be determined under the provision of Act, 2013.II. ... Old Act shall not lapse. ... with the Act of 2013. ... In the case the award has been passed within a window of a period of 5 years excluding the ....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ... , 2013. ... , 2013. ... , 2013. ... , 2013.
Under the provisions of Section 24(1) (a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. ... under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not tendered/paid to the original land owners under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition#HL_EN....
Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. ... In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in #H....
In the cases on hand, in the absence of a provision on par with Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act or Sec.25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... The provisions similar to Sec.11(a) of the Land Acquisition#HL_....
That being the position, though the proceeding initiated under the Old Act shall not lapse in terms of Section 24 of the New Act, however, the compensation is to be determined as per the New Act and a fresh award is required to be passed. 25. ... Under the provision of Section 24(1)(A), in case the award is not made as of 01.01.2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the Act, 2013, there is no lapse of proceeding. H....
It was further contended that Sec. 24 is more in the nature of a transitory provision and an exception and operates as a link between LA Act, 1894 and 2013 Act. e) While considering point No.2 extracted above, learned Single Judge in the said case held with regard to interpretation of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act as under:- Sec. 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 provides for lapse of acquisition proceedings commenced under the LA Act, 1894, on the satisfaction of certain conditions, which are as follows: a. The award of compensation should have been passed five years or more pri....
The provisions similar to Sec.11(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated in Sec.25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, whereby the Collector shall make an Award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Sec.19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. 16. Secs.23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply for the guidance of the determination of the amoun....
2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short, LA Act) from the judgment and award dated 23.04.2013 and 03.05.2014 delivered in Misc. (LA) 07 of 2011 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur.
Section 24(2) of the LA Act, 2013 provides for lapse of acquisition proceedings commenced under the LA Act, 1894, on the satisfaction of certain conditions, which are as follows: (a) The award of compensation should have been passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the LA Act, 2013. Each of the petitions are now examined on facts to consider whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in respect of the particular items of land involved, with the coming into force of the LA Act, 2013. In that, it should have been passed prior to 1.1.2009. (b) Physical poss....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
