Back
PRASANNA B. VARALE, KRISHNA S. DIXIT
Narayanaswamy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dtd. 5/5/2021 whereby his W.P.No.50482/2018 (LA-RES) challenging the land acquisition proceedings has been negatived.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to falter the impugned order mainly on the grounds: lapse of acquisition under Sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; fraud vitiating the acquisition, appellant still continuing in possession and non-payment of compensation. The counsel argues that all these aspects having not been properly addressed in their due perspective, the impugned order is liable to be voided.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
Timely challenges to land acquisition proceedings are essential, and unsubstantiated claims of fraud do not suffice to invalidate completed acquisitions, especially when third-party interests have be....
The court established that once land is vested in the state following proper acquisition procedures, former owners cannot claim possession or challenge the acquisition based on the Doctrine of Lapse,....
Completed land acquisitions under 1894 Act immune from Section 24(2) 2013 Act challenge if possession taken and compensation deposited prior.
Relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.
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 cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession....
The court held that subsisting interest is essential for maintaining land acquisition challenges, and statutory compliance prevails over claims of lapse unless proven otherwise.
Challenges to land acquisitions should be made within a reasonable time and must demonstrate a lack of public purpose for the acquisition.
The statutory presumption raised by the notification under Sec. 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was crucial in determining the possession of the land and the lapse of acquisition proceedings.
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
