Back
NITIN JAMDAR, S. MANU
THOMAS V. T. S/O LATE V. T. THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA), KOTTAYAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.
1. The Appellants have challenged acquisition of their property invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The challenge before the learned Single Judge failed, and the Appellants are now before us in appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. The property in question is 4.5 ares in re-survey No. 54/69 of Meenachil Village in Kottayam District. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, on 14 July 2009, accorded administrative sanction for 258 works. One of the works was the construction of a drain and footpath, as well as connecting the Ramapuram-Pala road to the River View road. The Assistant Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, stating that the proposed road is important in Pala town and that its development is essential to reduce traffic congestion, and considering there would be an administrative delay, Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 be invoked. The District Collector also addressed a letter to the property owner under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 on 17 March 2010 (Exhibit P3).
3. Petitioner No. 5 submitted representation on 4 July 2010 (Exhibit P5) which yi
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally n....
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
1. The power under Section 17 (4) is an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acq....
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established is that the acquisition proceedings can lapse under Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act if the award is not passed within the specified period. Additionally, the cou....
The court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.
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
