Mere mutation entries without kabjepatti or credible evidence of possession do not establish the taking over of physical possession. Absence of notice under Section 12(2) and failure to offer or tender compensation support the lapsing of acquisition proceedings. Delay and laches are not applicable when the cause of action arises from the enactment of the 2013 Act. (Paras: 26 to 31, 32 to 37, 54 to 56, and 61)

The Court held that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as neither compensation was paid nor was possession taken for over five years after the award.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Court’s Power to Entertain Disputed Questions of Fact.

2. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) — Section 24(2) — Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings Due to Non-payment of Compensation and Non-possession of Acquired Land.

3. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) — Section 12(2) — Requirement of Issuance of Notice — Non-compliance.

Issues:

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of physical possession of the land within five years from the date of the award.

2. Whether the State Government’s failure to establish possession through credible evidence was sufficient ground to declare the acquisition lapsed.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition — Lapsing Proceedings — Non-payment of Compensation — Non-possession of Land — Section 24(2) — Right to Fair Compensation — Writ Jurisdiction — Mutation Entry — Kabjepatti — Panchanama — Delay and Laches.

Nature of the Litigation: Writ Petition seeking declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings due to the failure of the State Government to take possession and pay compensation within the stipulated time under the 2013 Act.

Relief Sought: Petitioners sought declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Award dated 25 February 2001 lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Reason for Filing the Case: Non-payment of compensation and failure to take physical possession of the acquired properties for more than five years post the award.

Previous Decisions: The High Court previously declared the acquisition lapsed through a judgment dated 2 May 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration following the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Petitioners’ Contentions:

• No notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever issued.

• Compensation was neither offered nor tendered.

• Physical possession of the property was never taken.

• Reliance on Indore Development Authority judgment (2020) 8 SCC 129.

(b) Respondents’ Contentions:

• Mutation entries indicate possession was taken.

• Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.

• No kabjepatti available but asserted possession based on revenue records.