- Case
- GEETA VIJAY DESHPANDE AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 10-01-2025)
- Law
- Land Acquisition Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
Facts: The Petitioners sought a declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Respondents contended that possession of the land was taken, and the land was allotted to project-affected persons. The Petitioners then amended their plea, seeking compensation under the 2013 Act instead of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing that compensation for the majority of land holdings was not deposited.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction as a Writ Petition. The Petitioners initially sought a declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings, but amended their plea after the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others.
Issue: Are the Petitioners entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically under the proviso to Section 24(2), given that the award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, possession was taken, but compensation was not deposited for the majority of land holdings?
Holding: Yes, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal, which clarified that the word "or" in Section 24(2) should be read as "nor" or "and," meaning that both physical possession must not have been taken AND compensation must not have been paid for the acquisition to lapse. However, the Court also considered the proviso to Section 24(2), which states that if compensation for the majority of land holdings has not been deposited, all beneficiaries are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. Since the compensation was not deposited for the majority of land holdings, the Petitioners were deemed entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The Court directed the Respondents to compute and pay the compensation within a specified timeframe.
