Back
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
Lakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Krishna S Dixit, J. - Petitioners claiming to be the successors-in-interest of one Mr.L.Narasimhaiah, have filed this petition 17.10.2012 for laying a challenge to the 1985 acquisition of the subject land fairly described in the schedule.
2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty falters the acquisition arguing that: the land is not required for the purpose for which it is acquired because the earlier proposals for acquisitions have been already dropped and the Respondent-Society itself has said about non-requirement; it is a land granted to Scheduled Caste persons under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and therefore, cannot be acquired casually; possession continues with the Petitioners till date and therefore, acquisition has lapsed u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; the 8th Respondent-middlemen namely C.V.L.Shastry was not their land owners attorney and he has not handed the compensation received from the government/society. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Petition.
3. After service of noti
Challenges to land acquisitions should be made within a reasonable time and must demonstrate a lack of public purpose for the acquisition.
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Subsequent purchasers of land after the issuance of acquisition notifications cannot challenge the acquisition, and delay in filing a petition to challenge an acquisition should be viewed seriously.
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
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.
The court emphasized that the acquisition for an industrial area could benefit a single company, and that delay in passing an award cannot be solely attributed to the authorities if the records were ....
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
