[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vallabhbhai Dudabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19358 of 2016
==========================================================
VALLABHBHAI DUDABHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MR. V.A.SUMANT FOR MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,2,3,4
SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
The present petition has been filed seeking for a declaration
that the acquisition of the lands-in-question stood lapsed in view of
the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, on the ground that though the award under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been declared on
29.01.1982, the petitioners have not taken the compensation. In a
vague manner, it is sought to be submitted in the writ petition that
after passing of the award, the amount of compensation has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
been deposited in the Court by the respondent authorities and as
such, they have never taken possession of the lands-in-question and
the petitioners remained in continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the lands-in-question and further that they are
carrying out agricultural activities on the lands-in-question. It is
also stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have also availed
loan facility by mortgaging the lands-in-question and they have
paid the said loan on 12.02.1993 to the State Co-operative Bank.
Revenue receipts until the year 1995 are sought to be placed on
record to assert that the petitioners are in actual physical
possession of the lands-in-question.
2. An averment has been made in the writ petition in paragraph
No. '13' that there has been no rojkam or panchnama prepared in
the presence of witnesses as required by law to show that the
possession has ever been taken from the petitioners. It is also
stated that the situation of the land as far as possession is
concerned is the same as it was when the panchnama for the
purpose of measurement was carried out on 29.12.1980, wherein
the existence of the standing crops was shown. Certain
photographs of the lands-in-question has been brought on record as
Annexure-L to the writ petition to establish that the petitioners are
very much in actual physical possession of the lands-in-question
and they are carrying on agricultural activities.
3. Taking note of the above contentions of the petitioners in the
writ petition, pertinent is to note the contents of the affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent No.3 namely Deputy Collector/Special
Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation (Irrigation). It is
categorically stated therein that the land acquisition proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
had been concluded with the making of the award dated
29.01.1982 with respect to the lands-in-question in LAQ Case No.
80 of 1979 and further, on the request of the petitioners vide letter
dated 03.03.1983 to re-grant the land, categorical reply was sent
on 19.03.1985 by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department,
Rajkot that as the land was acquired and after joint measurement,
even award has been published, there was no question of re-grant
the land. A categorical assertion has been made therein that the
possession of the land-in-question was with the State Government
and vide resolution dated 22.01.1997, the State Government has
decided to give shallow land around the irrigation scheme to the
previous owners of the land for the limited purposes of cultivation,
when the land is open and available. For all other purposes,
ownership of the land always remained with the State Government.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the possession of the
lands-in-question has not been taken and hence the proceedings of
the land acquisition would lapse, therefore, is misleading.
5. It is further contended therein that even after the specific
intimation given to the petitioners, they refused to accept the
compensation for the acquired land and hence the same had been
deposited in a separate account of the Mamlatdar, Rajkot. A copy
of the communication dated 13.04.2017 sent by the Deputy
Executive Engineer, Gondal to the Irrigation Deaprtment intimating
the said fact is also placed on record.
6. Taking note of the above facts reflected from the record, in
view of the statement made in paragraph No. '13' of the writ
petition, it is evident that the panchnama with respect to the lands-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
in-question was prepared and the possession of the lands-in-
question was taken by the State Government. Moreover, the award
has been declared in the year 1982 itself and despite due
intimation to the petitioners, they have refused to receive the
compensation determined under the award.
7. In the case of Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129], while interpreting Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013, the Apex Court has categorically held that
both the conditions of sub-section(2) of Section 24, i.e. physical
possession of the land-in-question having not been taken and the
compensation having not been paid to the land owners, are
required to be fulfilled to attract the deeming provision of lapse
under sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. It is also noted
therein that in case where the land acquisition proceedings have
been concluded with the making of the award and the land owners
refused to receive the compensation inspite of due notice, they
cannot take defence of non-payment of compensation, inasmuch as,
the resistance on the part of the land owners in giving away
physical possession of the land-in-question after acquisition process
is complete and refusal to receive compensation, can not enure to
their benefit.
8. It is further held in Indore Development Authority
(supra) that preparation of the panchnama or paper possession of
the land-in-question is an approved mode of transfer of right in the
acquired land to the State Government and with the preparation of
panchnama, vesting of the land with the State Government is
complete in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Further, there is no divesting by virtue of Section 24 of the Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
2013.
9. With this legal position, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the petitioners may have been
in the actual physical possession of the lands-in-question, even
after completion of the land acquisition proceedings under the old
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but they cannot assert that they have
any right, title or interest in the lands-in-question after vesting of
the same with the State Government free from all encumbrances by
virtue of Section 16 of the Act, 2013 and where there is no
divesting under Section 24 of of the Act, 2013.
10. Suffice it to say that Section 24 is a transitory provision,
which takes care of various situations; such as, in case where the
award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Action 1894 had
not been declared prior to commencement of the Act, 2013, w.e.f.
1.1.2014 though the land acquisition proceedings had been
initiated under the Act, 1894, as per Section 24(1)(a), the
provisions of 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation
shall apply.
11. However, under Section 24(1)(b) where an award under
Section 11 of the Act, 1984 has been made, further proceedings
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall
continue as if the said Act (of 1984) has not been repealed. The
provision in sub-section (1) of Section 24, thus, saves the
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where
the process was not complete under the said Act.
12. Sub-section(2) of Section 24 is attracted only in such cases
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
where the award has been made but possession of the land-in-
question has not been taken and also the compensation has not
been paid. The word "physical possession" occurring in sub-
section(2) of Section 24 has been interpreted and explained by the
Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) to
include the paper possession or panchanma prepared under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with the procedure
prescribed therein.
13. We may also take note of the conclusion drawn by the Apex
Court in paragraph Nos. '366.1' to '366.8' of Indore
Development Authority (supra) as under :-
"366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue
as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the
1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as
"and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due
to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other
words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has
not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not
been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then
all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions
of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled,
interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted.
Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the
lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit
with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
"landowners" as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. 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. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). 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.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be
treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed
on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the
land vests in State there is no divesting provided under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been
taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land
acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-
2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by
court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013
Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19358/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition."
14. Considering the above, from all angles, it cannot be said that
the proceedings of acquisition of the land-in-question which had
been concluded with the making of the award in the year 1982, can
be said to have been lapsed by invoking the deeming provisions of
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
15. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid
of merits. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
C.M. JOSHI
