Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ
Sarala Sopan Thorat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Sonak J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs in this Petition:-
“[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the provision of Constitution (44th Amendment Act) of the year 1978 as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
[B] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting the Central Act No. 68 of 1984, namely Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act 1984, as violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.
[C] That this Honourable Court be pleased alliteratively to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the C
The court affirmed that land acquisition can be valid if partly funded by the State, satisfying public purpose requirements, regardless of the controlling shareholding of the acquiring corporation.
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
The court ruled that while the State failed to comply with statutory requirements for land acquisition, binding precedent limits the ability to declare the acquisition void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
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
