Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ., N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Deepak Damani, son of Late Omprakash Damani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties and the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. failed mediation process (Para 4) |
| 3. claims on acquisition violations (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. defense arguments from iocl (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's assessment of the single judge's decision (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. recurring argument on the acquisition process (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal conclusions by the single judge (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. final rulings on merits of the appeals (Para 21 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. court's agreement with the single judge's views (Para 22 , 24) |
| 10. court's findings on legal compliance and rights. (Para 23) |
| 11. dismissal of the appeals with no costs (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant in WA No. 334/2022, and Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA No. 333/2022. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL); Mr. Rajiv Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department; and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam; appearing on b
The court upheld the legality of the land acquisition process under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, emphasizing that claims of procedural violations must be explicitly pled and that acquisitions for public....
Delay and latches can be grounds for dismissal of a writ petition, and a party seeking compensation enhancement cannot subsequently challenge the acquisition proceedings.
(1) Acquisition of land – After having acquiesced to action of Government by accepting compensation under an agreement, land owners are not justified in making grievance at a belated stage.(2) Writ j....
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, ruling that the absence of a dwelling house on the acquired land precluded entitlement to employment under the rehabilitation policy.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Completed land acquisitions under 1894 Act immune from Section 24(2) 2013 Act challenge if possession taken and compensation deposited prior.
Subsequent purchasers of land acquired under the 1894 Act cannot claim rights under the 2013 Act as their transactions are void.
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
