Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedGopal Lal Kumawat (since deceased) through LRs v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2026:RJ-JP:41816
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23106/2017
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 12 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Anand Sharma
- 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 11
Final Outcome
Writ petition dismissed (para 7). Liberty to represent to the Competent Authority for 25% developed land in lieu of the acquired land, to be decided under the statutory laws and the Government's prevailing policy by a reasoned, speaking order within 60 days (paras 8-9); pending applications disposed of (para 10).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 12.10.2026
Key holdings
- Whether Section 24(2) applies is no longer res integra after the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (para 5).
- Compensation deposited in the civil court in 1998 took the claim outside Section 24(2) (para 6).
- The order decides the case on the deposit; it records the State’s submission on possession without a separate finding (paras 3, 6).
- The heirs may seek 25% developed land by representation, to be decided by a speaking order within 60 days (paras 8-9).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The original petitioner, who has since died and is represented by his legal heirs, challenged an award dated 23.06.1989 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (para 1). He claimed that the proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation was not paid and possession was not taken (para 1). The State submitted that the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014, that the awarded compensation of Rs. 6,67,250 was deposited with the civil court on 26.05.1998, and that possession was taken before the 2013 Act came into force (paras 2-3).
Court's Findings
The Court held that the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is no longer res integra, since the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., 2020 (8) SCC 129, has clarified it (para 5). As the High Court read that ruling, the lapse provision in Section 24(2) does not apply where the amount has been deposited with the competent authority, or where possession of the land has been taken (para 5). The respondents' reply to the writ petition specified that the compensation had already been deposited in the civil court on 26.05.1998; on that basis, the Court held that no case within the purview of Section 24(2) could be maintained (para 6). It found no substance or merit in the petition and dismissed it (para 7). The deposit decided the case: the order records the State's submission that possession was taken before the 2013 Act came into force (para 3), but makes no separate finding on possession.
Legal Principle
As the High Court read Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where the compensation amount has been deposited or possession taken; a deposit of the awarded compensation in the civil court sufficed (paras 5-6).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. 2020 (8) SCC 129
Constitution Bench ruling applied to hold that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply where the amount has been deposited or possession taken; the 1998 deposit in the civil court defeated the lapse claim.