Back
ALOK ARADHE, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land owners' for short) has been allowed and the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) has been directed to grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value having similar potentiality in the nearby locality or to pay compensation in respect of land alleging the same to have been acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Under The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents No.2 and 3 are the owners of land measuring 22 guntas of land of Sy.No.90/4 situated in Valagerahalli Village, Bangalore South (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule land' for short). The authority was in need of several other lands including the schedule land for formation of a layout viz., 'Gnana bharathi Layout'. Thereupon the process of acquisition of land under
The court affirmed that disputes regarding compensation inadequacy must be referred to the appropriate authority under the Act, underscoring the Collector's duty to comply with statutory timelines.
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 applies only to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to acquisitions initiated under any other Central or State enact....
Proper compensation assessment procedures under Section 64 of the 2013 Act must be followed, allowing the authority to consider referral and potential delays for justifiable reasons.
Where Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) applies, i.e. where there is no Award on the date o....
The delay in approaching the court did not debar the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The demand for justice was compelling, and the court emphasized the....
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
