Back
G. S. KULKARNI, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Shantinath Dada Chougule (deceased) through his legal heir – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 19 December, 2008. It was admitted by this Court by an order dated 22 April, 2013. The primary challenge is to an order dated 3 December, 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Pune Division, Pune rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1848 (for short “the 1848 Act”) refusing to withdraw the petitioner’s land for acquisition as also to the legality of the acquisition of the petitioner’s land.
2. At the outset, the prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted which read thus:-
b. After examining legality, propriety and validity of the decision to acquire Gut No. 903/2 and Gut No. 131/1B+2B+3C situated as Mauje Mardwadi, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the said decision and declare that said land of the Petitioner is liable to be acquired and further
Possession must remain with the landowner for an application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to be maintainable; erroneous inclusion of mortgaged land invalidates acquisition.
The court ruled that inordinate delay and lack of diligence by petitioners preclude the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in land acquisition matters.
Section 48(1) of the Act and in view of the well settled legal position emerging from interpretation of Section 48(1) of the Act by the Supreme Court, it is clear as noon day, that since possession o....
Once land has been acquired, it cannot be restored to tenure- holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is so acquired. Once possession of land has been taken, i....
The court emphasized that land acquisition must follow due process, and failure to do so renders the acquisition invalid, protecting the property rights of individuals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in approaching the Court can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition, especially in cases where possession of the land has b....
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 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....
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
