Accepted compensation and possession defeat a claim that acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2).

The petitioners claimed ownership of 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1, Nelagadaranahalli village, which was included in acquisition proceedings initiated for respondent No. 4 Society under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

A consent award was passed on 21 May 1990.

The State’s objections stated that possession was taken in 1992, a notification under Section 16(2) was published, and the land was handed over to the Society.

In earlier proceedings, petitioner No. 2 agreed to accept Rs. 14,20,000 as compensation; the settlement was recorded in 2009.

The petitioners later attempted to return that amount, alleging that a possession sketch showed that land other than theirs had been taken.

Their review petition raising the same possession-related contention was dismissed in 2014.

They sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

1. Whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that possession of the petitioners’ land had not been taken and compensation had been returned.

2. Whether the petitioners could maintain that claim in light of the earlier settlement, receipt of compensation, and dismissal of the review petition raising the same contention.

The Court considered Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the petitioners’ claim that the acquisition had lapsed because possession had not been taken and compensation had not been retained.

The acquisition had been initiated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the respondents relied on the award and the taking of possession under that Act, including the Section 16(2) notification.

The Court found that the preliminary notification identified the petitioners’ land and that petitioner No. 2 had earlier agreed to give it up for compensation, which he received.

It treated the alleged error in the possession sketch as minor and found that it had been rectified, with the petitioners’ land in fact taken over.

The Court also noted that the same possession contention had been raised in the review petition and rejected, and that the later attempted return of compensation did not alter its conclusion.

Since possession had been taken and the petitioners had received compensation, the Court held that the requirements for their Section 24(2) claim were not established.

It dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.