Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
KARDAK ETE
On The Death Of Jogesh Chandra Paul His Legal Heir Mrs. Sabita Paul – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By Secretary And Commissioner Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and acquisition details of the land. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding lack of compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's delay and unauthorized inaction of authorities. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. states delay and laches defense from respondents. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's evaluation of compensation status. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 24) |
| 6. court's analysis on compensation payment credibility. (Para 25 , 28 , 32) |
| 7. compensation obligation under various land acquisition statutes. (Para 26) |
| 8. judicial determination of entitlement to compensation despite procedural lapses. (Para 31) |
| 9. court's directive to pay compensation. (Para 34 , 35) |
Judgment :
(KARDAK ETE, J.)
Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, for respondent No. 1, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents No. 6 and 7.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner (now deceased) namely, Jogesh Chandra Paul and on his death represented by his legal heir Mrs. Sabita Paul. The petitioner has prayed for
Failure to follow proper procedures for land acquisition and non-payment of compensation violates principles of natural justice, justifying court intervention despite delays.
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
Section 24 of the Right to Compensation Act does not apply to acquisitions initiated under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act; subsequent purchasers can only claim compensation based on ....
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
