Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act Cannot Be Invoked To Revive Or Nullify Concluded Proceedings Already Upheld By Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court
The Court observed that by no stretch of imagination can it be presumed that once the acquisition was approved by Supreme Court, the Government would thereafter have discretion to de-notify the land already acquired and vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Justice Vinod Diwakar, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that land acquisition proceedings which have been concluded and upheld by the Supreme Court cannot be revived under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Vinod Diwakar, while hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their land, observed that “Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to revive or nullify such concluded acquisition proceedings, which have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Advocate Abhishek Srivastava represented the petitioners, while Ashok Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The land in question had been acquired through notifications issued in 1990 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Ganga Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana. An award was passed in 1992, and possession was taken in phases. Several tenure-holders accepted compensation, while others sought enhancement through references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
Earlier, the MDA had resolved to withdraw from part of the acquisition in 1997, but later rescinded this resolution in 2002, deciding instead to proceed with the development of the entire land. Writ petitions challenging this were dismissed by the High Court in 2009, and the dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Despite this, fresh writ petitions were filed seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and that the lands be de-notified on the ground that compensation had not been paid and physical possession had not been taken.
Court’s Observations
The Allahabad High Court began by noting that the issue of acquisition had already travelled up to the Supreme Court, which had dismissed appeals against the acquisition and held that once possession is taken and the urgency clause invoked, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances and cannot be re-conveyed.
The Bench also noted that compensation had been accepted by the majority of tenure-holders, and for those who had not, the amount had been deposited in Court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. Significantly, the MDA had also carried out substantial development work, including the construction of roads, sewerage, and civic amenities, on the acquired land.
On the plea of parity with other landowners whose lands were previously de-notified, the Court held that such de-notifications were issued in the light of earlier judicial interpretations subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Bench remarked that “The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra) has decisively ruled that acquisition shall not be deemed to have lapsed if either of the two conditions, namely, payment of compensation or taking of possession, is fulfilled.”
The Court clarified that such de-notifications do not create any enforceable right for the petitioners when the acquisition had already been concluded and upheld.
The Court also invoked the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, holding that “… the petition suffers from the vice of Constructive res judicata. The petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest were parties in Writ Petition No.30346 of 2013, who had challenged the very same acquisition proceedings on broadly identical grounds.”
Concluding that “the petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest participated in the acquisition by filing proceedings for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, thereby acknowledging the validity of acquisition”, the Court held that “no case of parity or discrimination is made out, as the legal foundation of the earlier de-notification decisions no longer holds good after the judgment in Indore Development Authority.”
Conclusion
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that concluded acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, particularly when upheld by the Supreme Court and when possession and compensation requirements had already been fulfilled.
Casue Title: Ashok Kumar & Anr Vs State Of UP & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:158482-DB)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocates Abhishek Srivastava, Raghav Dev Garg and Rajesh Mishra
Respondents: Ashok Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Advocates Rajeshwar Tripathi and Shiv Prakash Gupta