TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for want of actual physical possession or payment of compensation. (ii) Whether, on the facts proved, the respondents had validly taken possession and paid or deposited compensation in the manner required by law.
Issue (i): Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for want of actual physical possession or payment of compensation.
Analysis: Section 24(2) applies where an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was made five years or more before commencement of the 2013 Act and either actual physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid. The provision operates with a non obstante clause and the expression "paid" is not satisfied by a mere offer or tender; the compensation must be made available in the legally recognised manner, namely by payment to the landholder or deposit in the court where a reference under Section 18 could be made. Applying the settled interpretation of the provision, if neither possession nor lawful payment is established, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts proved, the respondents had validly taken possession and paid or deposited compensation in the manner required by law.
Analysis: The award was passed more than five years before commencement of the 2013 Act. The record did not show that compensation for the petitioners was deposited in their account or in court in the manner contemplated by the governing law. The material also did not establish that actual physical possession was taken from the petitioners by following the prescribed procedure. A mere assertion of possession or tender of compensation, without proof of lawful delivery of possession and lawful payment, was held insufficient.
Conclusion: The respondents did not prove valid taking of possession or payment of compensation in the manner required by law.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the acquisition proceedings in relation to the petitioners' land were held to have lapsed, leaving the respondents free to proceed afresh only in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse where, after an award made at least five years earlier, the authority fails to establish either lawful actual physical possession or lawful payment of compensation by deposit in court or equivalent statutory mechanism; mere tender or assertion of possession is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
