Back
R. D. DHANUKA, M. M. SATHAYE
Suryakant Tarachand Bhatewara – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
1. Rule. Mrs. Bane, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 waives service of notice. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for a declaration that lands belonging to the Petitioners to the extent of 14H 40R are free from any encumbrance, of acquisition and/or reservation under the Scheme of Neera Deodhar Project or otherwise as they are illegally acquired/retained by the Respondents without following the due process of law and without paying any compensation to the Petitioners.
3. The Petitioners have also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents to return the possession of the landed property admeasuring 14H 40 R. The Petitioners have prayed for declaration that the award dated 28th May, 2013 is anti-dated, bad in law and for quashing and setting aside the said award dated 28th May, 2013. The Petitioners have also prayed a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents to acquire land admeasuring 39R afresh under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short
The acquisition proceedings under Award No.12/83 were held not to lapse in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and they will continue.
The award under Section 23-A of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 is not final and binding if all 'persons interested' did not appear before the Competent Authority and agree in writing on the matters ....
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
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
