- Case
- SHRI. SAKHARAM GOVINDA KADAM (DECD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 10-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Land Acquisition Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
Facts: The Petitioners claimed their land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act"), because neither compensation was paid nor possession taken after the 2001 award. The State argued possession was taken in 2001-2002, and the petition was delayed. Respondents 7-9, who were allotted the land, also contested the petition.
Procedural Posture: The Writ Petition was initially allowed, declaring the land acquisition proceedings lapsed. Respondents 7-9 appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal.
Issue: Did the land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, considering whether possession was taken and compensation was paid/tendered to the Petitioners?
Holding: Yes, the acquisition is declared to have lapsed. The Court held that the State failed to prove that possession was taken, and it was undisputed that compensation was never offered or tendered.
Reasoning: The Court relied on Indore Development Authority, which held that acquisition lapses if neither possession is taken nor compensation paid. The Court found the State's evidence of possession (mutation entries) insufficient, especially given the lack of panchanama or kabjepatti. The Court emphasized that mere paper possession is insufficient and that the State bears the onus of proving physical possession. The Court also noted the State's failure to categorically deny the Petitioners' continued possession and the absence of any offer or tender of compensation. The Court rejected the State's delay argument, noting that the cause of action arose only after the 2013 Act came into force.
