The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the possession of the land which was acquired by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act and held that the plea that proceeding under the 1894 Act has lapsed was not tenable since the award had already been made and the compensation amount had been deposited in a treasury and further stated that where the award has been made it takes the forms of a decree, which cannot be challenged before a writ Court.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking direction upon the respondent for not disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and against the order passed by the trial court which held the objection filed by the petitioner as being time-barred under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since neither the compensation has been paid nor the possession of the land has been taken by the Respondent Authority, therefore, the land acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act shall lapse and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Hereinafter called 2013 Act) will apply.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the said plot was already allotted to the Municipal Corporation after its acquisition and the possession was delivered under Section 16 after completing the due process under Sections 4, 6, 11 and 12.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the substance of the public notice was given in the locality under Sections 9 and 12 of the Act and the compensation had been assessed and the award was made after the final order was passed. It was stated that the compensation was not been received by the petitioner under the award although the amount has been deposited in the treasury.
The court stated that the question of determination in the present case was whether the Award under the old 1894 Act will lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to which the court stated that the award under the old Act will not lapse for the reason that the amount has been not been received and it was clear from the impugned order that the compensation amount had already been deposited in the treasury and notices have been served to the petitioner to receive the compensation amount, but they did not turn up to receive the amount.
The court referred to the judgment in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal which held that in case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court and the landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The court stated that in the present case, the plea that proceeding under the 1894 Act has lapsed was not tenable since the award had already been made and the compensation amount had been deposited in a treasury and further stated that where the award has been made it takes the forms of a decree, which cannot be challenged before a writ Court.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Rasmuni Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 4490 of 2021
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Gautam Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav and Mr.Deepak Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
