Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, HARISH KUMAR
S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Harish Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both the Letters Patent Appeals arise out of common judgment/order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10637 of 2021 and C.W.J.C. No. 9409 of 2022 and as such with the consent of the parties, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Initially two writ petitions were filed, one being C.W.J.C. No. 10637 of 2021 seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners from their Chak lands/holdings as fully detailed in Annexure-P/2, situated in Mauza Dubaha Bujurg without following the procedure established by law. Another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 9409 of 2022 has been filed for restraining the respondents in the work of construction of Canal over the land of the petitioners in the light of the land acquisition proceeding held in the year 1974.
4. Challenging the orders/judgment of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants have put forth manifold of submissions. It is contended that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1972-73, but the actual physical possess
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.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession....
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.
Merely because there was an audit objection and a portion of the amount deposited was returned would not lead to the interference that the amount was not deposited.
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
