Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Bagalkot Town Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Mallkiarjun C. Charantimath – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court’s observations on the litigation process and resolution. (Para 1 , 2 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. land acquisition and entitlement to alternate land. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. application of rules regarding entitlement to allotment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. next steps in litigation and potential resolution timeline. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
2. We have been able to get a fair idea as regards the controversy involved in this litigation.
4. The total area of land that came to be acquired for the purpose of Project was 6 acres and 3 guntas.
6. The petitioners - herein, i.e., the Authority went in IntraCourt appeal. The Appeal Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge with slight modification. According to the Division Bench of the High Court, instead of 7 acres and 39 guntas, the original petitioners would be entitled to 1 acre and 33 guntas because only 1 acre of land was earlier used for non-agricultural purpose.
8. The main issue that arises for our consideration is whether the original petitioners are entitled to any alternate land over and above the compensation which was paid to them.
10. The difficulty is that the Rules were not looked into by the High Court. Nei
Courts have to individualise justice by moulding the relief and for that purpose, they can read down the instruments, under which rights are claimed consistent with the law under which they are issue....
Point of law: Absence of an award in terms of the provisions of the Act, the reference as made to the L.A.R.R. Authority as was done by the District Level Negotiations Committee would have no legal e....
The appellants, having previously contested the land acquisition unsuccessfully, cannot revive claims for restitution of land under Section 38C of the BDA Act and are limited to compensation claims.
Approval conditions for land acquisition must be met to establish vested rights; public interest considerations prevail in land allocation disputes.
An argument to contrary blurs boundary lines of schemes of acquisition envisaged under these statutes and thus, runs counter to scope of section 28 of 1966 Act.
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
