2016 (12) TMI 1853 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of acquisition proceedings - declaration also sought that the acquisition has lapsed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as compensation amount was not deposited nor physical possession of the land was taken - HELD THAT - The land in question is a small piece of 7 guntas of land situated at Bommanahalli village in Bengaluru South Taluk. Therefore question of BDA now proceeding with the acquisition by passing an award taking over possession and making any layout to distribute the sites at this stage does not arise. After a lapse of 30 years BDA cannot proceed with the acquisition by passing an award as it would result in arbitrary exercise of power by the BDA in as much as the market value to be determined and compensation payable would be reckoned as it existed on the date of publication of the preliminary notification during the year 1984. Payment of compensation on that basis to the land owners would be illusory. The acquisition having not been completed no award having been passed nor possession of the land having been taken for the last three decades the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed as having been abandoned by the BDA and the State Government - the principle that transferee of land after the publication of preliminary notification cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the acquisition cannot be made applicable to a case where the acquisition itself has been abandoned and has stood lapsed due to efflux of time on account of the omission and inaction on the part of the acquiring authority particularly because it is because of the lapse of time and the abandonment of acquisition right accrues to the original owner to deal with his property including by way of sale and the purchaser will acquire right to protect his interest. It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas of Bommanahalli village Bengaluru North Taluk have stood lapsed and have been abandoned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration sought under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
2. Abandonment and lapse of acquisition proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Declaration sought under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
The petitioners initially sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). However, the Senior Counsel for the petitioners later clarified that this specific provision may not be applicable in this case. Consequently, the court did not delve into the implications of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Issue 2: Abandonment and lapse of acquisition proceedings
The petitioners, who were the original owners of the land, argued that the acquisition proceedings for their property had been abandoned and had lapsed due to the inaction of the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). The BDA had issued preliminary and final notifications for the acquisition in 1984 and 1986, respectively, but had not passed any award or taken possession of the land in question. The petitioners had even sold the land to a subsequent purchaser, who had developed the property by constructing a residential house and had been in peaceful possession for many years.

The court noted that despite 30 years passing since the final notification, the BDA had not taken any steps to complete the acquisition. The court emphasized that the authority responsible for land acquisition must act within a reasonable period, as failure to do so would deprive the landowner of their right to just and fair compensation. The court cited various judgments to support the principle that statutory duties must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe.

The court highlighted that the BDA's failure to pass an award or take possession for three decades amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. It concluded that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed and been abandoned by the BDA and the State Government. The court allowed the writ petitions, declaring that the acquisition proceedings for the land in question had stood lapsed and abandoned.

In summary, the court's decision was based on the inaction of the BDA in completing the acquisition process within a reasonable period, leading to the abandonment and lapse of the proceedings, ultimately favoring the petitioners' claim.