ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
Mahavir – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned.
2. There is a gross abuse of the process of law reflected in the instant case. In Raisena, Lutyen's zone of New Delhi the acquisition took place and awards were passed thereto in 1911-1912. A writ petition was filed by the petitioners before the High Court after 105 years later, urging that compensation has not been paid; due to operation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the 2013 Act"), the land acquisition has lapsed.
3. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court they claimed to be the fourth Generation of Nathu son of Kaalu. It was averred that Government passed the award Nos.55 and 56 in the year 1911-1912. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners were cultivators in the capacity of Gair Morusi tenants. As per the prevalent policy, at the relevant time, cultivators and tenants were entitled to 50 per cent of the compensation. About 100 acres of the land of the predecessors had been acquired in the village Raisina. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was
Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India
Shri Kishan Das v. State of U.P.
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Hissar Improvement Trust v. Smt. Rukmani Devi
Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Thakoredas, Major
U.P. State Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh
Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.