Summary
Land in Vadodara district was acquired in 1991 for resettling Narmada Project oustees under a 1993 consent award, with possession recorded by panchnama. The owner then refused the compensation offered and sought release of the land; the payment order was cancelled in 1995 but restored in 2009. The Gujarat High Court set aside the consent award and declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was unpaid and the owner cultivated the land. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals: under Indore Development Authority lapse requires that neither possession be taken nor compensation paid, a landowner who refuses tendered compensation cannot claim lapse, possession by panchnama is valid, and the award could not be set aside for the owner's own refusal.
Issues
- Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where compensation under a consent award was offered but refused by the landowner and possession was taken by panchnama though the owner continued to cultivate.
- Whether a consent award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be set aside on the ground that it remained unimplemented for years owing to the landowner's own refusal of compensation.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013As construed in Indore Development Authority, deemed lapse requires inaction of the authorities in both not taking possession and not paying compensation; a landowner who refused tendered compensation cannot claim lapse, and possession taken by drawing a panchnama vests the land with no divesting. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.4, 6, 6.1, 7)
- Sections 11, 16 and 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894A consent award was passed and compensation offered under Section 31, which the owner refused; possession by panchnama at the time of the award vested the land in the acquiring agency, and the award could not be set aside merely because the owner thereafter avoided handing over physical possession and sought release. (¶¶ 2.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 7)
Held
- The affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner, read in its entirety, showed that the owner refused both to hand over the land and to accept compensation, that only the payment order and not the acquisition was cancelled in 1995, and that the land vested in the Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency; the High Court erred in disbelieving the taking of possession by panchnama, which is a legally permissible mode. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.4)
- Since the compensation under the consent award was in fact offered and the owner was called to receive it but refused, there was no lapse on the part of the acquiring body in either respect, and both twin conditions for deemed lapse are unsatisfied; the High Court committed a serious error in setting aside the consent award without appreciating the owner's conduct in refusing compensation and repeatedly seeking release. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 7)
- The 2009 order restoring the payment order was not challenged in the writ petition, and even if it were set aside and the 1995 order restored, it would not bear on deemed lapse, since the fact remains that compensation was offered and refused; the prayer for remand is rejected. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeals allowed; Gujarat High Court judgment dated 31.08.2015 setting aside the consent award dated 11.06.1993 and declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and its order dated 01.04.2016 dismissing review, quashed; no order as to costs.