Disputed questions of possession and compensation are unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.

The petitioners sought a declaration under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, that acquisitions of land in Village Bahapur had lapsed because possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid.

In 2017, the writ petition was allowed on the basis of the respondents’ affidavit, which stated that possession of some parcels had not been taken and compensation for the balance had not been paid.

Respondent No. 2 later sought review, contending that old records had not been traced in time and that documents subsequently located showed possession had been taken and compensation paid for the relevant parcels.

The review petition was filed 414 days late and re-filed 152 days late.

The petitioners disputed the respondents’ account and maintained that they remained in possession.

1. Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the review petition should be condoned.

2. Whether the 2017 judgment should be recalled in light of the subsequently located acquisition records and the alleged incorrect factual position in the respondents’ earlier affidavit.

3. Whether the writ petition could be decided under Article 226 where the parties disputed possession and payment of compensation and resolution required evidence.

The petitioners invoked Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which concerns the lapse of certain land acquisition proceedings where the statutory conditions relating to possession and compensation are met.

The Court also considered its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, declining to determine disputed factual claims requiring evidence in writ proceedings.

The Court condoned the delay, noting both the age of the acquisition proceedings and the public interest in preventing land that had been properly acquired and compensated from being lost through departmental inefficiency.

It then found that the 2017 judgment rested on the respondents’ asserted position that possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid, while the documents later produced by the review petitioner indicated otherwise.

Because the petitioners disputed those documents and maintained that they remained in possession, the competing claims required evidentiary determination and could not properly be resolved on affidavits in a writ petition.

On reconsideration, it declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to pursue any available alternative remedies in accordance with law.