Bombay High Court Holds Government Cannot Allot Land It Never Legally Acquired; Cancels Rehabilitation Allotment and Orders Alternative Land Within Eight Weeks
State Allotted Unacquired Pune Land to Project-Affected Family; Bombay High Court Cancels Allotment but Directs Alternative Land Within Eight Weeks
Facts
The dispute arose from two connected writ petitions relating to land bearing Gat No. 1420, situated at Village Sikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune.
The land measured 5 hectares and 35 ares. A portion measuring 1 hectare and 61 ares was included in acquisition proceedings initiated for rehabilitation of persons displaced by the Chaskaman Irrigation Project.
The first petition was filed by Namdev Bhagwan Khedkar, the original landowner, seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
The connected petition was filed by the legal representatives of Laxman Gajanan Wadekar. The Wadekar family had been recognised as project-affected persons and was allotted land by the State for rehabilitation.
By an order dated 19 June 2019, the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, allotted a total of 2 hectares and 40 ares to Laxman Wadekar. This included approximately 1 hectare and 60 ares from Gat No. 1420.
The original landowner objected to the allotment, asserting that:
- Possession of Gat No. 1420 had never been taken;
- Compensation had never been paid;
- The land continued to remain with him;
- The land had never legally vested in the State;
- Therefore, the State had no authority to allot it to the Wadekar family.
A departmental inquiry was conducted.
The Rehabilitation Department submitted a report dated 5 August 2019 recording that:
- No notice under Section 12(2) had been served on the landowner;
- Compensation had not been paid;
- Possession had not been taken;
- The land had not vested in the Government;
- The allotment was made even before the Government’s name was entered in the revenue record;
- The land was allegedly transferred soon after allotment, creating suspicion about the transaction.
Following further proceedings, the Additional Collector reduced the Wadekar family’s allotment from 2 hectares and 40 ares to 1 hectare and 20 ares.
The portion allotted from Gat No. 1420 was reduced to 40 ares.
The first reduction order dated 4 January 2020 was set aside by the High Court because the Wadekar family had not been given a hearing.
After remand, the Additional Collector passed another order dated 2 August 2022, again reducing the allotment to 1 hectare and 20 ares, including 40 ares from Gat No. 1420.
The Wadekar family filed Writ Petition No. 10352 of 2022 challenging this reduction. They sought restoration of the larger allotment made in 2019.
The High Court heard their petition together with the landowner’s petition seeking lapse of acquisition.
Issues
The High Court considered:
- Whether the acquisition of Gat No. 1420 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Whether the State had taken physical or advance possession of the land.
- Whether compensation had been paid or validly offered to the landowner.
- Whether the State’s name in the revenue record created deemed possession.
- Whether the State could allot Gat No. 1420 to the Wadekar family if the acquisition had lapsed.
- Whether the Additional Collector had authority to reduce the land allotted to the Wadekar family.
- Whether the Wadekar family remained entitled to alternative rehabilitation land even if their allotment from Gat No. 1420 could not survive.
Landowner’s Arguments
The landowner argued that both conditions required for lapse under Section 24(2) were satisfied:
- Possession was never taken; and
- Compensation was never paid.
He relied heavily on the State Rehabilitation Department’s own report dated 5 August 2019.
He submitted that the State had failed to produce:
- A possession panchanama;
- A possession receipt;
- Proof of physical takeover;
- Proof of payment of compensation;
- Proof of service of the award notice;
- Proof of tender or deposit of 80% compensation under the urgency provision.
He also pointed out that government officials had repeatedly recommended deletion of Gat No. 1420 from acquisition because it did not fall within the beneficial zone of the Chaskaman Project.
According to him, once the acquisition had lapsed, every order allotting the land to the Wadekar family was legally void.
Wadekar Family’s Arguments
The Wadekar family argued that the acquisition had not lapsed because the State had already taken advance possession under Section 17 of the 1894 Act.
They relied on a one-page document from the State record referring to “advance possession.”
They also invoked the Maharashtra amendment to Section 24, under which possession may be deemed to have been taken if the Government’s name was entered in the revenue record within the prescribed period.
Regarding their own petition, they argued that the Additional Collector had no power to review and reduce the original allotment dated 19 June 2019.
They submitted that:
- They were genuine project-affected persons;
- They had been waiting for rehabilitation land for years;
- The original allotment had conferred rights upon them;
- The later reduction was unlawful;
- The original area of 2 hectares and 40 ares should be restored.
State’s Arguments
The State supported the Wadekar family’s stand on the issue of lapse.
It claimed that advance possession had been taken.
However, the State could not produce reliable evidence showing:
- Actual physical possession;
- A possession receipt;
- A panchanama;
- Prior tender of 80% estimated compensation;
- Payment or deposit of compensation;
- Service of notice under Section 12(2).
The State nevertheless opposed the landowner’s request for declaration of lapse.
Analysis of the Law
Section 24(2): Both Conditions Must Exist
The High Court applied the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Under that decision, acquisition lapses only when:
- Possession has not been taken; and
- Compensation has not been paid.
Both conditions must coexist.
The Court therefore examined whether the State had proved either lawful possession or payment.
State Failed to Prove Possession
The State relied mainly on a single-page document mentioning “advance possession.”
The High Court found that this document was insufficient because:
- It was disjointed;
- It did not describe any physical takeover;
- It was not a possession receipt;
- It was not supported by a panchanama;
- It contained no acknowledgment from the landowner;
- The column relating to land allotted from Gat No. 1420 was blank.
The Court observed that even the Commissioner had considered the proposal for deletion under Section 48(1) in 2002.
The fact that withdrawal from acquisition was still being considered supported the landowner’s contention that possession had not been taken.
The State’s own Rehabilitation Department subsequently confirmed in 2019 that the land remained with the original owner.
Urgency Provision Under Section 17 Was Not Followed
The State and Wadekar family argued that advance possession had been taken under Section 17.
The Court rejected this claim.
Section 17(3A) required the Collector, before taking possession, to tender and pay 80% of estimated compensation.
The Court relied on Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the mandatory sequence is:
- Tender and payment of 80% compensation;
- Taking possession;
- Vesting of land in the Government.
The State produced no evidence that 80% compensation was ever tendered, paid or deposited.
The alleged urgency possession therefore had no legal foundation.
Compensation Was Never Paid
The State relied upon notices under Sections 9(3) and 9(4).
The Court held that those notices merely invited claims and did not prove payment or tender of compensation.
The alleged notice under Section 12(2) was only an internal communication directing the Talathi to serve notices.
There was no evidence that the notice was served upon the landowner or his predecessor.
Even when the State tendered an additional photocopy during arguments, its counsel conceded that it did not show service upon the concerned landowner.
The Court therefore concluded that compensation had neither been offered nor paid.
Revenue Entry Did Not Establish Deemed Possession
The Wadekar family relied on the Maharashtra amendment concerning deemed possession through a revenue entry.
The Court found that the Government’s name was entered in the revenue record only after the allotment order dated 19 June 2019.
The award had been passed on 29 February 2000.
The entry was therefore made almost nineteen years later and not within three years of acquisition.
The statutory deeming provision did not apply.
Precedent Analysis
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
This Constitution Bench judgment established that lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only when neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid.
The Court found both conditions satisfied in the present matter.
Accordingly, the acquisition had lapsed.
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
This judgment held that payment or tender of 80% estimated compensation is mandatory before urgent possession can be taken under Section 17.
Since the State did not satisfy that condition, its claim of advance possession was rejected.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the State had never lawfully acquired title over Gat No. 1420.
Its reasoning rested on the following circumstances:
- The land was outside the beneficial zone of the irrigation project;
- Government officers had recommended deletion from acquisition;
- The award itself referred to a future deletion proposal;
- No possession panchanama was produced;
- No possession receipt was produced;
- No 80% compensation was paid under Section 17;
- No Section 12(2) notice was proved to have been served;
- No compensation was paid;
- The State’s own 2019 inquiry confirmed these facts;
- The Government’s name was entered in the revenue record only after the 2019 allotment.
Because the acquisition had lapsed, the State never acquired lawful authority to allot the land to the Wadekar family.
The Court therefore rejected the Wadekar family’s request to restore the original allotment.
However, it recognised that the Wadekar family’s status as project-affected persons was a separate matter.
Their rehabilitation entitlement could not be defeated merely because the State had wrongly selected Gat No. 1420 for allotment.
The Court therefore protected their right to fresh consideration for alternative land.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court declared that the acquisition of Gat No. 1420 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Consequently, it quashed the orders relating to the allotment of land from Gat No. 1420 to the Wadekar family.
The Wadekar family’s request for restoration of the original allotment could not be granted because the State had no title over the land.
Nevertheless, the Court directed the State to reconsider their rehabilitation claim and pass an order allotting alternative land within eight weeks.
The alternative allotment could not include any portion of Gat No. 1420.
Key Takeaways
- The State cannot rehabilitate project-affected persons by allotting private land that never legally vested in it.
- Genuine rehabilitation entitlement does not validate an unlawful choice of land.
- A vague reference to “advance possession” does not establish physical possession.
- Urgent possession under Section 17 requires prior tender and payment of 80% estimated compensation.
- Revenue mutation made almost nineteen years after the award cannot establish deemed possession.
- Where acquisition lapses, every consequential allotment from that land becomes unsustainable.
- Courts may protect both sides by restoring the original owner’s land and directing alternative rehabilitation for project-affected persons.
Case Details
Case: Laxman Gajanan Wadekar, Deceased Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Additional Commissioner, Pune and Others, connected with Namdev Bhagwan Khedkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10352 of 2022 with Writ Petition No. 11150 of 2022 and Interim Application No. 18257 of 2022
Judges: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Reserved On: 15 July 2026
Date: 24 July 2026
Result: Acquisition of Gat No. 1420 declared lapsed. The Wadekar family’s allotment from that land was cancelled. The State was directed to consider and allot alternative rehabilitation land within eight weeks, excluding Gat No. 1420.
