Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Subject land acquired in 1992 for resettlement Project – Consent award passed – Thereafter, order passed for payment of 90% and 10% compensation, however the land owner did not accept the same – Land owner applied for cancellation of acquisition – Thereafter, order of compensation under the award came to be cancelled – However, land owner in possession of land and continued to cultivate– Thereafter, the amount of compensation as granted by the consent award restored – Writ petition by the land owner for setting aside the consent award – Meanwhile, 2013 Act came into effect – High Court held the acquisition deemed to have lapsed in view of s. 24(2) – On appeal, held: For a deemed lapse u/s. 24(2), there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body / beneficiary in not taking the possession and not paying the compensation – Both the conditions not satisfied – There was a consent award under the 1894 Act – Possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at the time of passing of the consent award – However, because of the reluctance on the part of the land owner, he did not actually and physically hand over the possession and continued to cultivate the acquired land which actually vested in the State Government – Compensation was offered pursuant to the consent award but the land owner refused to accept the same, thus, there cannot be any deemed lapse of acquisition u/s. 24(2) – Once the land owner refuses to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body, it would not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been paid – High Court did not appreciate and consider the conduct on the part of the land owner – Thus, impugned the order of the High Court quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, taking over the possession of the land by drawing panchnama is held to be legally permissible and can be said to be taking over the possession legally. In the instant case, there was a consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. The possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at the time of passing of the consent award dated 11.06.1993. However, thereafter, because of the reluctance on the part of the land owner, he did not actually and physically hand over the possession and he continued to cultivate the acquired land which actually vested in the State Government / Acquiring Body / Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency. [Para 5.4][709-H; 710-A-B]
1.2 There shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the amount of compensation was not paid. After the consent award, under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, was passed on 11.06.1993, the amount of compensation was in fact offered to the land owner alongwith other land owners and the respondent-original land owner was called upon to remain present in the office of Talati-cum Mantri to receive/accept the compensation. However, the land owner refused to accept the compensation though offered. In that view of the matter, once the compensation was offered, which as such was offered pursuant to the consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, but the land owner refused to accept the same, how there can be any deemed lapse of acquisition u/s. 24(2) of the Act. [Para 6][710-CE]
1.3 For a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body /beneficiary in not taking the possession and not paying the compensation. In the present case, both the conditions are not satisfied. In fact, the amount of compensation under the consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was offered and the land owner was called upon to accept the compensation however, the land owner refused to accept the same. Even the possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at the time of declaration of the consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. However, thereafter, because of the reluctance on the part of the original land owner, the physical and actual possession of the land could not be taken by the Acquiring Body. From the aforesaid it can be seen that there was no lapse at all on the part of the Authority neither in offering / paying the compensation nor in not taking the possession. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court materially erred in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. [Para 6.1][710-F-H; 711-A-B]
1.4 As regards, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in setting aside the award dated 11.06.1993 on the ground that the award has not been implemented for number of years and the amount of compensation has not been paid for number of years and the land is not utilized / used for number of years is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that it was the original owner who refused to accept the compensation offered in the year 1993. Therefore, an order dated 07.05.1993 was passed cancelling the order of offering the compensation. However, the acquisition and the consent award, both continued. However, thereafter, the land owner continued to make representations to release the land from acquisition. Therefore, it was the original land owner who did not accept the compensation offered and continued to make representations to release the land from acquisition. In these circumstances, the Division Bench committed a very serious error in setting aside the consent award on the aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 ought not to have been set aside in the manner in which it is set aside. The High Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the conduct on the part of the land owner. At this stage it is required to be noted that at many places the High Court has observed that “the petitioner, alongwith other land owners of the area, agreed to acquisition of his land on a fixed rate of compensation”. Even the High Court has also taken note of the fact that the amount of compensation was offered but the original land owner refused to accept the same. Once the land owner refuses to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been paid. There shall be deemed lapse of acquisition u/s. 24(2) if there is a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body / beneficiary in not taking the possession and the compensation is not paid. Even otherwise, for the deemed lapse u/s. 24(2), twin conditions of not taking the possession and not paying the compensation, both are required to be satisfied. Therefore, if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed lapse. [Para 7][711-B-H; 712-A-B]
1.5 As regards, the prayer on behalf of the land owner to remand the matter to the High Court to consider the legality and validity of the subsequent order dated 21.01.2009 cancelling the earlier order dated 07.03.1995 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the order dated 21.01.2009 was as such not the subject matter of the writ petition before the High Court. No prayer was made to set aside the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. What was challenged before the High Court was award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and the subsequent communication dated 05.04.2010 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land owner to remain present in the office of Talati cum Mantri to accept the compensation and to release the land. Be that as it may, assuming that the order dated 21.01.2009 was bad in law and the earlier order dated 07.03.1995 is restored, in that case also, it would not have a bearing on the aspect of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The fact remains that though the amount of compensation was offered and the original land owner was called upon to accept the compensation as per the consent award, he refused to accept the same. [Para 8][712-B-E]
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.