Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ
Sakharam Govinda Kadam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per M. S. Sonak, J)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 1(d) are the owners of the property bearing Gat No.683, slab area admeasuring 0 Hectares 40 Are, and the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 2(b) are the owners of the property bearing Gat No. 275, slab area admeasuring 0 Hectares 40 Are, situated at village Sonaichiwadi, Taluka Patan, District Satara (collectively referred to as “the said properties”).
3. The said properties were acquired vide Award dated 25 February 2001 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”). Upon coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), the Petitioners, by instituting this petition, challenged the acquisition invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because neither was any compensation paid to the Petitioners nor was the possession of the said properties taken over from the Petitioners under the Award dated 25 February 2001 (Award). This Writ Petition was allowed by a common judgment and order dated 02 May 2017, and the land acquisition proceedings were declared lapsed.
4. The Respondents 7 to 9, claimi
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid.
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....
Once possession is taken by the State after acquisition, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury prior to the enforcement of the....
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 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....
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.
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
The petition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 must meet the gap period of five years, and the physical possession and compensation tender must be valid. The essentiality of the land for public ....
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
