Back
B. P. COLABAWALLA, M. M. SATHAYE
Deepak Bobhale – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Divisional Engineer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Sathaye, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Advocate T.J. Pandian waives service for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Central Railway). Mr. Patel, the learned AGP waives service for Respondent No.3 (State). Heard finally by consent.
2. This group of petitions raise the same issue for consideration and therefore are being heard together. It is a common ground before us that all the Petitioners are similarly placed and for the purpose of convenience, the facts of the lead writ petition No. 8071 of 2021 are being referred to.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a declaration that the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) about the Petitioner’s land Gat No. 61/2/A admeasuring 34.4 Guntha situated at Village Kaladhonda, Tal. Uran, Dist. Raigad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act’) stands lapsed. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to drop all the further proceedings under the said Act in relation to the subject m
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
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....
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....
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
No reasonable explanation being given by the petitioners for such inordinate delay, this court should not go into the stale demand of the petitioners after lapse of years.
The satisfaction of either taking possession or payment of compensation would prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Stale and dead claims relating to conc....
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid.
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.
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
