• Land Acquired, Payment was deposited in court but government still not used land and stayed vacant

Hi,

Our land in Mysore was acquired by government in 19996, award was done and also compensation was given which we did not accept and is still lying in court. We are still contesting in court and status quo was given by court in 2015 - Case no. - WP 40400/2011.

High court had dismissed our WP DETAILS can be found in Link --> https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75286967/

Want to know if new Act 2013 would be applicable for our case and provided with higher compensation or give us back our land??, As the government had acquired our land for Truck terminal but still they have kept vacant for more than 20 years from Acquire stating the land is authority of government now and will be used for other public purpose. Does this mean they have possession or still it's in question.

Kindly Guide us what can happen ?
Asked 1 year ago in Property Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
Religion: Hindu

As per the the land acquisition Act it has to be deposited in a separate account and not to be kept in treasury of state or court.  If the said provision is not adhered to then the deemed acquisition lapses. 

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
18708 Answers
34 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

Upon the preliminary notification of the land  being communicated, it is deemed that the land becomes the property of the Government. In your case preliminary notification was issued on 28.11.1996.

 

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (MUDA) had passed an award on 30.9.1997, which was duly approved by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.11.1997. The compensation amount was determined. in case of  affected parties  who had refused to receive the notice of the award a mahazar was drawn up by the Special Revenue Inspector of the authority as on 18.2.1998. For those parties who had not received the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (MUDA), the same had been deposited in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysore. The possession of the land in question has been taken and a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act was issued on 26.2.1998. 

 

In your case as the as the project was taken up under the assistance of the Asian Development Bank, the State Level Co-ordination Committee, constituted for the purpose of granting approval in respect of the projects taken up under the ADB Scheme, had approved the project of construction of the truck terminal. In case of projects taken up under the assistance of the ADB, the State Government would dispense with the need for prior approval of the State Government under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act and hence the authority was informed that there was no need for obtaining sanction in respect of the project

 

In the above circumstances, the court has held that even if the Scheme has lapsed, the fact that the land has vested in the State in the first instance and it is thereafter claimed that the same has been handed over to the authority or that there was no prior sanction of the Scheme, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality and would not lapse. It is also held that the State Government is enabled to utilise the land for such other public purpose, even if the land is to be resumed by the State Government on account of the Scheme having been found to be invalid or having lapsed.

The other circumstance that the petitioners have sought for enhancement of compensation is also a circumstance which would disentitle the petitioners from seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings and hence the remedy available to you is to continue the proceeding which you have initiated to seek enhancement of compensation, if these have been initiated.

As far the applicability of the new Act  of  2013 being invoked for payment of higher compensation, it will be incumbent upon the court to consider it, and in your case as the acquisition seems to have attained finality, seems doubtful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chandra Pal Singh
Advocate, Bangalore
13 Answers
3 Consultations

4.0 on 5.0

Acquisition of land has been upheld in your case 

 

2) 

Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, to mean that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act would lapse if the acquired land was not taken possession of by the State, or compensation was not paid to the displaced farmers

 

 

3) The bench held in this case that if the landholder refuses to receive the compensation, then it should be deposited with a court, rather than in the Government treasury if the proceedings were not to lapse.

 

4) it is not open to the person who has refused to accept compensation, to urge that since it has not been deposited in court, acquisition has lapsed. Claimants/landowners after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong

 

5) in your case compensation has been deposited in court 

 

6) 2013 act would not be applicable 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
74624 Answers
4464 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Dear Client,

You have not challenged the order and hence become final, otherwise has very possibility of order in your favor. Non-use of acquired land makes it invalid.

AS per amended act, when any land acquired remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs. 

Well, some time back, ,after amendment came into force, SC has in same kind of matter, declared the acquisition invalid and entitling higher compensation.

Land is still vacate and unused, acquisition liable to be quash and return to owners.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
18590 Answers
22 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

in your case HC has upheld acquisition and held that land can be used for other public purpose 

 

2) further admittedly in your case compensation has been deposited by authorities in court 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
74624 Answers
4464 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Yes it's valid  it it's before larger bench in supreme Court

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
18708 Answers
34 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

As per the latest rule and the amendments, if the land acquired for any purpose has not been used for the purpose for more than 5 years then it should be returned to the owner of the land from whom it was acquired.

You can file a writ petition before high court on the basis of the latest rules in this regard and claim the land back moreover you have not taken the money from them for this acquisition.

 

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
64580 Answers
836 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Yes the acquired land has not been used for more than 5 years from the date of its acquisition, then it can be returned to the owner  provided the owner is ready and willing to return the amount received towards compensation.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
64580 Answers
836 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

You can fight on merits. Winning can't be predicted in court of law

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
18708 Answers
34 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

You should act as per your lawyer advice 

 

litigation is long drawn and expensive proposition 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
74624 Answers
4464 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

You can rely upon the latest amendments and also the latest supreme court judgments on the subject and fight it out confidently.

You may be in regular touch with your advocate

 

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
64580 Answers
836 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Compensation not paid or deposited with a court - land acquisition not valid.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
18590 Answers
22 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer