Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Ankappa – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dtd. 16/7/1988 and final declaration dtd. 19/1/1989 issued by the respondents and for other reliefs.
2. The material on record discloses that on 16/7/1988, the respondents issued a preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the L.A.Act') proposing to acquire 125 acres of land including the subject lands of the petitioners for the purpose of establishing a High Technological Park by the Defence Department. Subsequently, an additional 2 acres 36 guntas was added to the acquisition and a final notification dtd. 19/1/1989 was issued under Sec. 6(1) of the L.A.Act by invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 17 of the L.A.Act and by dispensing with the enquiry required under Sec. 5-A of the L.A.Act. Subsequently, the award was passed on 10/5/1990 and possession was taken on 24/7/1989. As per the award, compensation was fixed at Rs.1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay, estoppel, and lack of grounds for challenging acquisition proceedings can bar a petition seeking quashing of the acquisition.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.
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.
Public interest prevails over private rights in land acquisition, and procedural delays do not invalidate acquisition proceedings.
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 ....
Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin
-
Read summaryEastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dugal Kumar
-
Read summaryLalaram vs. Jaipur Development Authority
-
Read summaryMotilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
-
Read summarySulochana Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal Transport
-
Read summaryUnion of India vs. Kishori Lal Gupta
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.