Back
B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Kali Charan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
| Table of Contents | |
| INTRODUCTION | |
| BATCH NO. 1- LANDOWNERS’ APPEALS @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS | |
| BATCH NO. 2- YEIDA APPEALS @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS | |
| BRIEF FACTS | |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF LANDOWNERS (APPELLANTS IN BATCH NO. 1) | |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF YEIDA (RESPONDENT NO.3 IN BATCH NO. 1): | |
| DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: | |
| CONCLUSION | |
1. Delay in filing application(s) for setting aside of abatement is condoned.
2. Abatement is set aside.
3. Delay in filing the application(s) for substitution is condoned.
4. Application(s) for substitution is allowed.
5. Application(s) for transposition is allowed.
6. Application(s) for intervention/impleadment is allowed.
7. Leave granted.
INTRODUCTION
8. The present batch of civil appeals @ special leave petitions arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1- State of Uttar Pradesh1[hereinafter being referred to as ‘State’] for planned development in the District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, through respondent No.3- Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority2[hereinafter being referred to as ‘YEIDA’] by invoking ‘urgency provisions’ incorporated in Sections 17(1) and
The court upheld the legality of invoking urgency provisions in land acquisition for integrated development, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
The court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally n....
1. The power under Section 17 (4) is an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acq....
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
(1) Acquisition of land – After having acquiesced to action of Government by accepting compensation under an agreement, land owners are not justified in making grievance at a belated stage.(2) Writ j....
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
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
