Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
Subaida. U W/o Marcus Iqbal Saddique E. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is to quash the notification dated 07.02.2024 which has been produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 to the extent it notifies the multiplication factor for the purpose of fixing of the land value with respect to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as ‘one’. The grounds on which the order is challenged are: 1) the Land Acquisition Collector does not have Authority to issue such a notification; 2) the notification is not in accordance with the schedule to theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining the source of power to the Land Acquisition Collector to issue the notification and also detailing the manner in which a notification has been issued in accordance with the schedule to the Act.
3. Heard the counsel on both sides.
4. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Lakshadweep area is a rural area and going by the notification dated 09.02.2016, issued by the Central Government the multiplication factor in the case of rural areas is to be ‘two’. The notif
The Administrator of Lakshadweep has the authority to delegate powers for fixing land value multiplication factors, and setting it at 'one' is justified based on the area's characteristics.
The absence of a notified urban area in Lakshadweep necessitates treating the land as rural, thus a multiplication factor of 2 is justified for compensation calculations.
The authorities have discretion to fix the multiplication factor for land acquisition value under the relevant statutory framework.
The Notification restricting the multiplier factor for land compensation to one in rural areas is ultra vires the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, mandating a mini....
The court affirmed that the doctrine of stare decisis applies, and legal principles declared by courts generally have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The court ruled that in land acquisition, established multiplication factors must be adhered to, as deviating from them unlawfully denies rightful compensation.
Delay by landholders in seeking redetermination does not negate their right to statutory interest under the Land Acquisition Act when statutory adjustments have been mandated by the court.
Acquisition of land – Hearing of objections – SDO has been conferred powers to act only as Land Acquisition Officer under land acquisition notification – Hearing of objections is a sacrosanct act tre....
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
