Compensation-paid acquisitions under the 1894 Act do not automatically attract benefits under the 2013 Act.

The petitioner’s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award was passed on 12 August 2011. The State submitted that compensation, including for the house, tubewells and trees, had been paid; the petitioner sought additional compensation and rehabilitation, resettlement and employment benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petitioner had previously sought substantially similar relief in W.P.(C) No. 709 of 2019; that petition and the subsequent writ appeal were dismissed. He did not disclose the full details of that litigation in the present petition.

Whether the petitioner could claim additional compensation and rehabilitation, resettlement and employment benefits under the 2013 Act for an acquisition completed under the 1894 Act.

Whether the present petition could be entertained when the petitioner had previously pursued substantially similar relief and had not fully disclosed that litigation.

The acquisition was governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the award was made.

In considering Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Court relied on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129: for deemed lapse, possession must not have been taken nor compensation paid; where either has occurred, the acquisition does not lapse.

The Court also applied the principle that a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must fully and frankly disclose material facts, including previous proceedings concerning the same subject matter; successive proceedings seeking substantially identical relief after nondisclosure are not to be encouraged.

The Court found that the 2011 award was made under the 1894 Act and that the petitioner had received compensation under it.

It relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Sureshdas, which had considered the applicability of Section 24(2) and the payment of compensation, and found no sustainable basis to revisit the issue under the 2013 Act. The petitioner’s assertion that rehabilitation, employment and other benefits had not been provided did not, by itself, establish entitlement to those benefits for an acquisition completed under the earlier statute.

Further, the petitioner had pursued substantially similar relief in earlier proceedings but failed to disclose their dismissal and the dismissal of the appeal, contrary to his duty of full disclosure.

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; the petitioner was cautioned that repetition of such conduct may invite appropriate action in accordance with law.