Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ., D.N.RAY
Jyotiben Kantilal Dave Through Her Son And The Power Attorney Holder Jagdishbhai Kantibhai Kdave – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
8(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings under the Act and award as claimed by the respondent authority being LAQ/10158 dated 11.2.1958 pursuant to the notification u/s.4 and 6 if any of the Act so far as it pertains to the land bearing survey no.1483/ paiki 1 situated at Halvad, Dist. Morbi.
(c) Your Lordships may further be pleased to declare that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 and in respect of the petitioners’ land, shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of the benefits which is granted by the Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(d) Your Lordships may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents herein, more particularly responde
Acquisition proceedings initiated decades ago cannot be challenged based on supposed lapses under current law; vested state land's repurposing is lawful despite original owner's claims.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compe....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent buyer of property after issuance of notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
Acquisition of land does not lapse if possession is taken and compensation is deposited; previous participation in proceedings bars new claims, and inordinate delays disqualify relief under Article 2....
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.
The court emphasized that the compensation amount being set apart and deposited in a Treasury account was sufficient to escape the rigour of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013.
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
