IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N.RAY
Taiyabali Yusufali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. This petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein a dispute arose between the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Yusufali Amadbhai, the original owner and the respondent No.3 herein with respect to apportionment of compensation determined under the reference court award for the land in question, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act’ 1894”), has been adjudicated.
2. The further challenge is to the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer for apportionment of compensation under the original award, between the original owner namely Yusufali Amadbhai and the respondent No.3, namely Laljibhai Kanjibhai Sorathiya, who claimed to be administrator and through whom the original owner Yusufali Amadbhai was appearing in the land acquisition proceedings. The Further prayer is to declare t
The Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a finalized award under the Land Acquisition Act; disputes on compensation apportionment must be determined by a Civil Court based on the parties' ri....
The Collector is statutorily obligated to refer disputes regarding compensation apportionment to the Court, and failure to do so renders any decision made without jurisdiction.
(1) Acquisition of land – If any dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then, competent authority shall refer d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority's power to review orders and its jurisdiction under the relevant sections of the act were central to the court's decision.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to apportion compensation and must refer such disputes to the Principal Civil Court.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must pertain to the apportionment of compensation settled under section 11 o....
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment under the MIDC Act must be referred to a judicial authority, not decided by administrative officers, ensuring proper legal process is followed.
The Collector's order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not appealable to the High Court under Section 54 as the Collector is not defined as a 'Court'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when complicated questions arise as regards entitlement and apportionment of compensation, the Collector should make a reference to the Court ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.