Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel, JJ.
The Market Committee Hodal - Appellant
Vs.
Sukhdevi and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 2009
Decided On: 15-10-2015
Land Acquisition Act - Possession - The court held that the suit for possession could not have been decreed as the land in question had already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
A suit had been filed by the Respondents for possession against the present Appellant. The suit had been decreed and even the appeal filed has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question had already been acquired under Notifications Under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the possession of the land had already been taken with compensation paid to the Respondents. Therefore, the suit for possession could not have been decreed.
Issues: The main issue was the possession of the land in question and whether the suit for possession could be decreed despite the land already being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the land had already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the possession had been taken with compensation paid to the Respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. A short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the possession of Kill Nos. 13/4 and 14/1 of Rectangle No. 226 situated at Patti Tihav, Hodal.
3. A suit had been filed by the Respondents for possession against the present Appellant. The suit had been decreed and even the appeal filed has been dismissed. In these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the land in question has already been acquired under Notifications Under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover, the possession of the land in question had already been taken on 20th April, 1981 and compensation in respect of land in question had already been paid to the Respondents. Relevant Notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 have been placed on record.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion the suit for possession could not have been decreed, especially when the land had already been acquired.
6. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is disposed of as allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
