Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Ranbir Singh Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Land and Building Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Vide the present LPA, the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 9920/2017, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein purchased a piece of land, being Plot No. 39, admeasuring 200 sq. yds., Khasra No. 562, Sector 2, Sultanpur Village (hereinafter referred to as the ‘land in question’), from its erstwhile owner vide a registered sale deed dated 22.10.1971. It is stated that the land in question was acquired by DDA in 1976 vide award No. 15-79/80. It is stated that compensation for the land in question was paid to the Appellant herein on 09.07.1993 and after getting the compensation the Appellant herein applied for an alternative plot under the rehabilitation policy. It is stated by the Appellant that he fulfilled all the conditions of getting an alternative land in lieu of his acquired land. It is stated that vide letter dated 27.01.2014, the application of the Appellant herein for alternative plot was rejected by the Land and Building Department/Respondent herein on the ground that the App
The absence of mutation documents alone cannot be a reason to deprive the appellant of his legitimate claim for rehabilitation under the policy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for grant of alternative land under the Scheme of 1961 must be strictly adhered to, and the application for alternative land sh....
Eligibility for alternative plots under land acquisition policies is contingent upon not owning a residential property at the time of acquisition.
The main legal point established is that applications for alternative plot allotment made in line with the respondent's advice and within the specified time should not be rejected based on limitation....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for allotment of alternative land should be made within one year of the receipt of compensation as fixed by the Collector, as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's claim for an alternative plot was allowed based on the finding that the petitioner's land was acquired completely, and the co....
Rehabilitation claim under 1999 Act dismissed due to 33-year delay from 1989 acquisition, compensation accepted without protest, Act's non-retrospective effect, and no prior application.
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
