Back
ANIRUDDHA ROY
Goleara Bibi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha Roy, J.
Mr. Rejaul Alam, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners.
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, learned Deputy Solicitor General appears for Union of India, he files the reports in the form of affidavits in all these writ petitions, the reports are taken on record. Copies have already been served upon the petitioner.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners files exceptions in the form of affidavits to all such reports in all these writ petitions, such exceptions are also taken on record.
Facts:
1. The case of each writ petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are identical and same. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have also admitted that the case made out by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions are identical and same. The stand taken by the respondents in their reports are identical and same. The stand taken by the petitioners in their exceptions filed to each such report are also identical and same.
2. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of the original land losers claimed compensation as land losers in respect of their lands acquired by the railway authority. The original land losers were the predecessors-in-i
The right to compensation for acquired land must be established by land losers or their heirs before the authority, and failure to do so contemporaneously with the acquisition process results in the ....
Authority's refusal to consider compensation claims due to procedural delays and lack of established rights is lawful; timely representation is essential in claims.
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
Once the land is acquired and vests in the State, it cannot be divested, and subsequent purchasers have no authority to challenge the acquisition proceeding.
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....
Failure to follow proper procedures for land acquisition and non-payment of compensation violates principles of natural justice, justifying court intervention despite delays.
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
