STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. versus JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 696
696
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
v.
JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1753-1754 of 2023)
MARCH 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND MANOJ MISHRA, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Subject land
acquired in 1992 for resettlement Project – Consent award passed
– Thereafter, order passed for payment of 90% and 10%
compensation, however the land owner did not accept the same –
Land owner applied for cancellation of acquisition – Thereafter,
order of compensation under the award came to be cancelled –
However, land owner in possession of land and continued to
cultivate– Thereafter, the amount of compensation as granted by
the consent award restored – Writ petition by the land owner for
setting aside the consent award – Meanwhile, 2013 Act came into
effect – High Court held the acquisition deemed to have lapsed in
view of s. 24(2) – On appeal, held: For a deemed lapse u/s. 24(2),
there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body / beneficiary
in not taking the possession and not paying the compensation –
Both the conditions not satisfied – There was a consent award under
the 1894 Act – Possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at
the time of passing of the consent award – However, because of the
reluctance on the part of the land owner, he did not actually and
physically hand over the possession and continued to cultivate the
acquired land which actually vested in the State Government –
Compensation was offered pursuant to the consent award but the
land owner refused to accept the same, thus, there cannot be any
deemed lapse of acquisition u/s. 24(2) – Once the land owner refuses
to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body,
it would not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse
of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been
paid – High Court did not appreciate and consider the conduct on
the part of the land owner – Thus, impugned the order of the High
Court quashed and set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per the law laid down by this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority, taking over the possession
of the land by drawing panchnama is held to be legally permissible
and can be said to be taking over the possession legally. In the
instant case, there was a consent award under Section 11 of the
Act, 1894. The possession was taken by drawing the panchnama
at the time of passing of the consent award dated 11.06.1993.
However, thereafter, because of the reluctance on the part of the
land owner, he did not actually and physically hand over the
possession and he continued to cultivate the acquired land which
actually vested in the State Government / Acquiring Body / Sardar
Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency. [Para 5.4][709-H; 710-A-B]
1.2 There shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 on the ground that the amount of compensation was
not paid. After the consent award, under Section 11 of the Act,
1894, was passed on 11.06.1993, the amount of compensation
was in fact offered to the land owner alongwith other land owners
and the respondent-original land owner was called upon to remain
present in the office of Talati-cum Mantri to receive/accept the
compensation. However, the land owner refused to accept the
compensation though offered. In that view of the matter, once
the compensation was offered, which as such was offered pursuant
to the consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, but the
land owner refused to accept the same, how there can be any
deemed lapse of acquisition u/s. 24(2) of the Act. [Para 6][710-C-
E]
1.3 For a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,
there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body /
beneficiary in not taking the possession and not paying the
compensation. In the present case, both the conditions are not
satisfied. In fact, the amount of compensation under the consent
award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was offered and the land
owner was called upon to accept the compensation however, the
land owner refused to accept the same. Even the possession was
taken by drawing the panchnama at the time of declaration of the
consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. However,
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. v. JAYANTIBHAI
ISHWARBHAI PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.