Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Vrindavan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Its Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership of the land by the appellant. (Para 1) |
| 2. asi's actions related to the land use. (Para 2) |
| 3. legal provisions for prohibited areas. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. restrictions on land use under section 20a. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. compensation for land use restrictions. (Para 7) |
| 6. compensation determination process. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 7. appellant's right to seek additional compensation. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 8. conclusion and order for compensation. (Para 11 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant which is a Temple Trust. It appears that the land subject matter of suit bearing Khasra No.11 (Area 3 Bigha, 1 Biswa), Khevat No.1, situated at Mauza Basai, Tehsil and District Agra is admittedly owned by the appellant. The courts have found that the appellant is the owner of the said land. After recording the finding that the appellant is the owner of the land and that the said land is being used by the respondent for beautification of Taj Mahal, the courts did not grant relief of injunction. It appears from the decision in second appeal that a prayer was made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that damages ought to have been awarded. This prayer
The Collector must adhere to procedural requirements stipulated in the Land Acquisition Act and seek assistance from assessors when determining compensation for acquired land classified as an archaeo....
The court affirmed that new constructions within prohibited areas near protected monuments violate statutory provisions, emphasizing the need for preservation of historical sites over individual cons....
The State must follow due process for land acquisition and compensate affected landholders as per constitutional provisions.
The constitutional right to property requires compliance with legal procedures for acquisition, emphasizing that no valid transaction occurs without proper consent and compensation mechanisms.
Absence of agreement for TDR/FSI necessitates monetary compensation under the 2013 Act, as lawful acquisition processes were not followed.
Compensation for land acquisition cannot be restricted to the amount claimed by the landowner; courts must ensure just and fair compensation reflecting true market value.
The court ruled that only individuals with recognized interests in property have standing to seek compensation, directing the formation of a management committee for oversight of temple properties.
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
