B. NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment dtd. 13/12/2021, by which a batch of Writ Petitions to challenge the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and even in reference to Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), was dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 4/12/1990 and the Declaration under Sec. of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27/7/1992, followed by the Award, dtd. 26/8/1994. The said Award lapsed as per the provisions of the Act of 1894 and Sec. 24(2) of the Act of 2013. However, it is in fact admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Writ Petitioners purchased the lands after entering into the agreement in the year 2010, i.e., much subsequent to the Notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894. The learned Single Judge, referring to the detailed facts of the case, dismissed the Writ Petitions after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India (reported in 2019 (10) SCC 229). It is also after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal (reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129).

(3.) The main ground to challenge the acquisition is the delay in passing the Award, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Award could not have been passed beyond the period of two years from the date of Declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894, whereas in the case on hand, the Declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27/7/1992, whereas the Award was passed on 26/8/1994, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings should have lapsed.