Back
AKIL KURESHI, UMA SHANKER VYAS
Brij Mohan Jain Son of Dal Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 27.10.2021 dismissing the writ petition No.5780/2018 filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No.433 of Village Karoli, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan). This land along with other neighboring land was subject matter of acquisition by RIICO for which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 23.09.1997 and published in official gazette on 04.10.1997. The acquisition proceedings proceeded further thereafter. After completing various steps envisaged under the Act of 1894, an award was passed by the land acquisition officer under Section 11 of the Act on 12.01.2001. According to the department the majority of the land owners accepted the compensation. The petitioner and some other persons did not. Thereupon the compensation was deposited before the reference court on 14.11.2008 and possession of the acquired land was taken from the petitioner and other similarly situated occupants on 24.12.2008. The petitioner approached the learned single
The court established that for an acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be proven.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, which does not require both non-deposit and non-payment of compensation amount and physi....
The application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings but applies to pending proceedings as on its enforcement date.
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is contingent upon the timing of possession of acquired lands and the deposit of compensation....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lapse of land acquisition is contingent upon the non-possession of land and non-payment or non-deposit of compensation, as clarified by....
The court emphasized that the compensation amount being set apart and deposited in a Treasury account was sufficient to escape the rigour of Section 24(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013.
Land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) if possession has been taken and compensation remains unpaid, emphasizing the need for clear ownership to claim relief.
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
