Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Chand – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the present appeal the Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 25.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25/2020, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein challenging the Order dated 15.04.2014, passed by the Recommendation Committee of GNCTD, rejecting the application of the Appellant herein for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of land acquired by the Government.
2. The Appellant herein and his brothers were joint owners of 34 Bighas of land comprising Khasra. Nos. 34/24, 37/4, 440, 11, 12, 44/19, 20, 195/70 and 71 in Village Kakrola, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as `the land in question') of which the Appellant had 1/4th share. It is stated that the land in question was acquired by the State vide notification No. F. 10(6)/88-L&B(2) dated 06.12.1991. An award, being award No. 1/93-94 dated 02.04.1993, was passed and the compensation was paid in two tranches. The first tranche of Rs.5,01,602.97/- was paid on 28.09.1993 and the second tranche of Rs.2,18,191/- was paid on 28.04.2000. It is stated that on 26.05.2000, the Appellant herein filed an application for allotment of an alternative plot under para E of th
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 owner of the land at the time of its acquisition is entitled to apply for an alternate plot under the policy issued by the public notice dated 27.03.1989. Delay in filing the appeal may not be ju....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were not eligible for alternative plots under the Scheme of 1961 and Section 21 of the DDA Act due to the availability of plot....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
The benefit granted by the Full Bench cannot be extended to similarly situated persons. The relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdict....
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
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
