Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details regarding the land acquisition and parties involved. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of the appellant's inclusion in the proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation on legal provisions and necessity of fair hearing. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. established principles regarding rights of interested parties in land acquisition. (Para 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. the outcome of the appeal and orders regarding remand. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. T. Marngar, learned counsel for the appellant. And also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika and Ms. J. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 30.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath Chariali, (‘Reference Court’ for short) in Misc. (Land Acquisition) Case No.1/2019. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Reference Court had directed the authority to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.4 to 30.
3.
The rights of a requiring body in land acquisition proceedings include the right to be heard and participate in determining compensation.
The beneficiary of land acquisition must be included as a party in proceedings to ensure effective adjudication of compensation claims, upholding principles of natural justice.
Third parties not named in land acquisition proceedings cannot implead themselves in reference proceedings and must seek a reference from the Deputy Commissioner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that possession and receipt of compensation qualify a person as 'interested' under the Land Acquisition Act, and just compensation must be award....
A subsequent allottee, MRPL, cannot be considered a 'person interested' for the purpose of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act, 1966, and the decisions in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (su....
The beneficiary of land acquisition is entitled to be heard before enhancing compensation, and the availability of an appeal remedy does not preclude invoking the writ jurisdiction.
A lessee whose lease has expired and whose extension suit was dismissed cannot claim to be a 'person interested' in compensation for acquired land under the 2013 Act.
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
