Land Acquisition Lapse: Petitioners Win Ownership Dispute

The Court declared the acquisition of the suit lands as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It allowed the writ petitions in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their ownership based on a registered sale deed and the prospective effect of unregistered documents. The Court dismissed objections raised by respondents regarding ownership and compensation non-payment, emphasizing the petitioners' entitlement to relief. The specific lands in Village Pansali were deemed to have lapsed, granting relief to the petitioners in accordance with legal provisions and precedents.

---

---

Issues:
- Declaration of deemed lapse of acquisition in respect of suit lands under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
- Entitlement of petitioners to relief based on ownership claims and unregistered documents.
- Objections raised by respondents regarding ownership and entitlement to relief.

Issue 1: Declaration of Deemed Lapse of Acquisition:
The petitions sought a declaration that the acquisition of suit lands had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The lands were notified for acquisition in 1999, with the Section 6 declaration issued in 2000. The Collector's award for compensation was made in 2003, but the compensation was not paid to the petitioners. The Court noted that the failure to pay compensation as required by law led to the lapse of acquisition, as established in previous legal precedents.

Issue 2: Entitlement of Petitioners to Relief:
The respondents contended that one petitioner was not entitled to relief as the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha, while others were not recorded owners and relied on unregistered documents. The Court analyzed the ownership claims and documents presented. It found that the petitioner in question had acquired the land through a registered sale deed, establishing ownership. For other petitioners, reliance on unregistered documents from three decades ago was challenged. However, the Court held that such documents had prospective effect only, recognizing the petitioners' rights as subsequent purchasers and "persons interested" prior to the acquisition.

Issue 3: Objections Raised by Respondents:
The respondents objected to the relief sought by petitioners based on ownership and entitlement. The Land Acquisition Collector admitted that compensation for a portion of the suit lands was not paid to the petitioners. The Court dismissed objections regarding ownership, as the compensation had been determined in favor of the petitioners. It also noted the lack of clarity in the Block Development Officer's affidavit regarding the vesting of land in the Gaon Sabha. The Court held that the petitioners' claims could not be defeated on these grounds.

In conclusion, the Court declared that the acquisition of the suit lands was deemed to have lapsed, specifically Khasra Nos. 19/18, 19/19, and 19/23 in Village Pansali. The Court allowed the writ petitions in favor of the petitioners based on the analysis of ownership, entitlement, and non-payment of compensation, in accordance with the legal provisions and established precedents.

---