TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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 land acquisition proceedings 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 physical possession and payment of compensation within the statutory period. (ii) Whether the acquisition was vitiated because the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without accepting the Collector's report under Section 5A and without assigning reasons for disagreement.
Issue (i): Whether the land acquisition proceedings 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 physical possession and payment of compensation within the statutory period.
Analysis: The award had been made more than five years before commencement of the 2013 Act. The physical possession of the acquired land had not been taken. The Court applied the settled interpretation of Section 24(2) that where an award is older than five years and possession has not been taken, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. The absence of effective possession, coupled with the statutory conditions being satisfied, attracted the legal fiction of lapse.
Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) and this issue is decided in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition was vitiated because the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without accepting the Collector's report under Section 5A and without assigning reasons for disagreement.
Analysis: The Collector had recommended release of the land, but the State Government neither accepted that recommendation nor recorded reasons for rejecting it before issuing the declaration. Compliance with Section 5A is a mandatory safeguard, and the Government is required to apply its mind to the Collector's report and disclose cogent reasons if it departs from that view. The failure to do so rendered the declaration defective and the acquisition unsustainable.
Conclusion: The acquisition was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 5A and this issue is decided in favour of the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The acquisition notification and award were set aside, and the appeals succeeded because the proceedings had lapsed and the statutory procedure for acquisition had not been duly followed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied, land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed, and a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act is invalid if the Government departs from the Collector's Section 5A report without giving cogent reasons.
TaxTMI 
