Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Avinash Dhavji Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
M.S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
PRELIMINARIES
2. Rule in each of these Petitions. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The learned Counsel for the parties’ state that substantially common issues of law and fact arise in all these Petitions. Accordingly, they submit that a common judgment and order could dispose of all these Petitions by treating Writ Petition No.1488 of 2016 as the lead Petition. This would be consistent with the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench made earlier in these matters.
4. The arguments concluded on 27 February 2025, and these matters were reserved for orders. From the pleadings, there was some ambiguity about whether any of the Petitioners in this batch had challenged the invocation of urgency provisions. So, the matters were posted for clarification on 21 March 2025. Upon the learned Counsel clarifying that there was no such challenge in this batch, the matters were again reserved for judgment and orders.
BASIC FACTS & CHALLENGES
5. In all these Petitions, the Petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings regarding their properties vide dec
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.
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.
Section 11A of Act, Collector has to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within that period, entire proceedings....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
Section 25 of LARR Act reads as Period within which an award shall be made –The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under se....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the prescribed timelines and procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the consequences of non-compliance, leadi....
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the New Act if no valid award existed under the Old Act at the time of the New Act's enactment.
Procedural lapses in land acquisition notification, hearing, and timelines vitiate proceedings, but completed construction and record loss warrant fresh award under original Act rather than new regim....
The court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed as the award was not made within two years, violating statutory provisions and infringing constitutional rights.
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
