DEVASHIS BARUAH, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
State of Mizoram, Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram – Appellant
Versus
Darkunga – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
D. Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. B. Deb, the learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Lalnunhlui, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Mizoram. We have also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 8, 11 and 13 of 2021 as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of 2021 as well as Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga for the Respondents Writ Appeal Nos. 11/2022 and 12/2022. We have also heard Mr. V. K. Jindal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Subedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NEEPCO.
2. This instant batch of Writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 passed in 11 (eleven) writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge had-
(b) Set aside the notification dated 28.01.1965 made under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955;
(c) The Petitioners in the
B.K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (1987) 1 SCC 658
Nature Lovers Movement Vs. the State of Kerala and Others (2009) 5 SCC 373
Naresh Kumar and Others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 9 SCC 416
Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2003) 3 SCC 128
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129
Santosh Kumar and Others Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and Another (1986) 2 SCC 343
Roma Sonkar Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission and Another (2018) 17 SCC 106
Baddula Lakshmaiah and Others Vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and Others (1996) 3 SCC 52
The court affirmed that awards under the Land Acquisition Act, once finalized, are binding, and the State must pay compensation despite challenges regarding land classification.
Section 31(2) of the Act requires the Collector to deposit the awarded amount in Court in case it is not received by the persons interested or there is some dispute. Under the said Act, the deposit i....
The court affirmed the obligation of the state to pay compensation for land acquisition as mandated by law, emphasizing the validity of the award and the constitutional right to property.
The court affirmed the obligation to pay compensation for land acquisition, emphasizing the learned Single Judge's jurisdiction to direct payment when no challenge to the award existed.
Section 11 A of 1894 Act read as period within which an award shall be made.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
The Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is inapplicable due to lack of Presidential assent, and compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act,....
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and not under the State Rehabilitation Policy, as the land was not classified as forest land.
Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06.
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where prior proceedings unde....
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.