Judgment Intelligence
OtherThe Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. v. Raju & Ors.
2023:RJ-JP:41496-DB
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1606/2017
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 30 April 2024
- Bench
- Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2); Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 31; Constitution of India — Article 226
Final Outcome
Appeal partly allowed: the Single Judge's order of 03.04.2017 was set aside and the acquisition held not to have lapsed under Section 24(2), but the appellants were directed to allot the developed plots offered to the landowners within three months; no costs (paras 36-39).
Key holdings
- Where possession was not taken but compensation was tendered and refused, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) (paras 15-16, 32).
- Unrebutted affidavit averments of tender, refusal and deposit, with no rejoinder filed, satisfied Section 31(1) (paras 25-26).
- A denial of the tender raised for the first time by amendment in appeal was treated as an afterthought (para 30).
- Suppressing the compensation tender and one's own request for developed plots disentitles a writ petitioner to relief (paras 33-35).
- Despite the suppression, the Bench directed allotment of the offered developed plots within three months (para 36).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Six khasras (1.35 hectares) in Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur were notified under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 07.03.1992 and an award followed on 09.04.1996, but possession stayed with the landowners (paras 3, 12). Pleading only non-possession, they sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) (paras 2-3, 21). The State and the Housing Board replied that compensation was offered, refused and deposited in court, and that the landowners had later sought 15% developed plots instead (paras 4-5). On 03.04.2017 a Single Judge declared the lapse (paras 1, 6). In the Board's appeal, after Indore Development Authority, the landowners were allowed to amend their petition on the tender of compensation (paras 7-8).
Court's Findings
Possession admittedly stayed with the landowners on 01.01.2014, so the issue was compensation (para 12). Under the Constitution Bench ruling, ‘or’ in Section 24(2) reads as ‘nor’: lapse needs both non-possession and non-payment, and a landowner who was tendered compensation under Section 31(1) and refused it cannot claim lapse (paras 14-16). The State and the Board stated on affidavit that notices were issued in 2002, 2004 and 2005 and that, on refusal, the amounts were deposited in court by cheques in 2005 (paras 22-23). The landowners filed no rejoinder (para 25). Those unrebutted statements met Section 31(1) in letter and spirit (para 26); the denial added by amendment in appeal was an afterthought (para 30). The case thus fell within the Constitution Bench's conclusion on tendered compensation (para 32). Independently, the petition failed for suppressing the tender and the landowners' own application for plots, since a writ petitioner must come with clean hands (paras 33-34, relying on K. Jayaram). By seeking plots they had waived their right in the land (para 35). Yet, as the authorities had agreed to allot plots, the Bench directed allotment in its equitable jurisdiction (para 36).
Legal Principle
Acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only where possession was not taken and compensation was not paid. Compensation tendered under Section 31(1), refused and deposited in court is treated as paid. A writ petitioner who suppresses such a tender is not entitled to relief under Article 226 (paras 15-16, 32-33).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. 2020 (8) SCC 129
Constitution Bench: deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act requires that possession was not taken nor compensation paid; a landowner tendered compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act who refused it cannot claim lapse.
- K. Jayaram & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 815
A person invoking the equitable writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands; suppression of material facts disentitles him to relief.
