Land acquisition and resettlement challenges dismissed due to unexplained delay in follow-up and abandonment of initial relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Case Note & Summary

The petition, filed by the heirs of Babasaheb Pirjade, contested the acquisition of their agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming procedural lapses and illegal acquisition calculations. Originally petitioned in 1988, the matter saw remand from the Supreme Court in 1998 for reevaluation by the Divisional Commissioner. After a personal hearing in 2005, the petitioners claimed ignorance of the 2006 adverse decision until 2018. The Court dismissed the petition on grounds of undue delay, lack of follow-up, and abandonment of the primary claim under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to new interpretations established in the Indore Development Authority case.

Introduction and Petitioners

Petition filed by Nizamuddin Husainsaheb Pirjade and others, descendants of Babasaheb Pirjade, challenging land acquisition under the 1894 Act and seeking a declaration of lapsing due to alleged non-compliance (Para1-3).

Ownership and Land Partition

Details the inheritance of agricultural land among Babasaheb Pirjade’s sons, recorded in 1976, showing independent cultivation by each heir (Para4-5).

Acquisition Proceedings

Acquisition notice issued in 1985 under Section 4, claiming survey numbers 42/5, 19/1, and 42/1 for resettlement under the Warna Project (Para5-6).

Initial Legal Challenge and Remand by Supreme Court

Petitioners initially challenged acquisition in WP No. 1860 of 1988, remanded by Supreme Court in 1998 for reevaluation by the Divisional Commissioner on grounds of incorrect computation and classification of grasslands (Para8-10).

Delayed Follow-up by Petitioners

Court highlights a 13-year gap in follow-up after a 2005 hearing and an alleged discovery of the 2006 decision only in 2018, with no documentation proving interim pursuit (Para11-12).

State’s Response and Legal Position

State contends that due process was followed, possession taken in 1988, and compensation offered. Claims delay and lack of evidence to support the petitioners' claims of missed communication (Para16-17).

Analysis of Petitioners’ Justifications for Delay

Court finds petitioners' delay unjustified and their reliance on the Supreme Court’s status quo order misplaced, noting that petitioners failed to provide evidence of active pursuit of their rights (Para20-23).

Impact of Indore Development Authority Ruling

Citing Supreme Court’s interpretation in Indore Development Authority, court dismisses argument that acquisition had lapsed, stating both possession and compensation conditions must be unmet for lapse (Para27-28). Legal Provisions Discussed

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48(1)

Pertains to the State's powers and conditions for compulsory land acquisition.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)

Allows for lapse of acquisition if certain conditions regarding compensation and possession are not met.

Constitution of India - Article 226

Provides the High Court’s power to issue directions or orders, invoked here to assess delay and merits of the writ.

Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976

Governs the State’s policies on land acquisition for displaced persons, contested for non-compliance by petitioners. Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the petitioners’ significant delay, lack of follow-up on remand orders, and abandonment of primary relief claims in light of updated Supreme Court interpretation on lapse conditions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act bar their right to seek relief. The Court further emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot remedy stale claims without plausible justification for delay.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition Law, Delay in Justice, Resettlement LawLand Acquisition Act 1894, Land Lapse, Resettlement of Displaced Persons, 2013 Act Section 24(2), Bombay High Court Judgment