Back
ALOK ARADHE, S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R. Sethuram – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, J. - In this intra court appeal the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are joint owners of lands situate at Kollegala, Chamrajanagar District. Out of the aforesaid lands, 1 acre of land belonging to appellants was sought to be acquired for providing underground drainage facility to Kollegala Town. A preliminary notification dated 25.10.2014 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The aforesaid notification was published on 07.11.2014. It is pertinent to mention that appellant No. 1 filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid notification, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 19.01.2015 and it was inter alia held that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the appellant No. 1 was granted the liberty to file objections and the authority was directed to consider the same.
3. Thereafter, on 26.05.2014, the Special
The principle of res judicata applies to bar subsequent challenges to notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, and delay and laches in challenging land acquisition proceedings render the petitio....
The necessity of tendering compensation and the assumption of possession by the acquiring authority as statutory requirements, which displaced the petitioners from claiming parity with other estate h....
A third party has no locus to challenge land acquisition proceedings and only the owners of the land can seek compensation. Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition is a ground for refusing exercis....
Substantial compliance with statutory procedures and proper intimation and hearing of affected parties are essential for valid land acquisition.
The court emphasized the importance of truthful claims and participation in legal proceedings, and upheld the validity of the invocation of the Central Act for land acquisition.
The court emphasized the importance of public purpose over individual interests in land acquisition proceedings and affirmed the impugned notifications and the consequent award.
A purchaser of the land after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation. Any....
The court affirmed that procedural irregularities in land acquisition notifications do not invalidate the process if the landowner participated in the enquiry and raised objections.
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
