Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
YASHWANT VARMA
Satish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner North West – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. no merit in challenge to impugned order (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. eligibility criteria for land acquisition compensation (Para 2) |
| 3. public interest in land acquisition compensation (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. Having heard learned counsels for parties, the Court finds no merit in the challenge as raised to the order impugned.
2. The petitioner had essentially raised the prayer for being granted an alternative plot in lieu of acquisition in terms of the Policy of Rehabilitation as was framed by the respondents. The land of the petitioner came to be acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12 August, 1997. The Award was rendered on 9 September, 1999 and possession taken over on 13 November, 1997. Undisputedly, although the total land which stood recorded in the name of the petitioner measured 27 bighas and 17 biswas, only 12 bighas and 09 biswa was acquired. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondents have proceeded to refuse the prayer as made bearing in mind the following pertinent observations as were entered by the Supreme Court
Eligibility for alternative plots under land acquisition policies is contingent upon not owning a residential property at the time of acquisition.
Respondents unjustly dismissed the petitioner's application for an alternative plot due to lack of notified requirements, leading the court to quash the decision and remand the case for fresh conside....
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner in the ....
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 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 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....
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
