Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Vivek Lodha – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2000/2021.
B. In the alternately, the compensation award may kindly be directed to be made afresh while taking into consideration of provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
C. The respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioners from the date of initial notification till receipt of payment of compensation."
2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners were having agricultural land at Village Boranada Patwar, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. There was a notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 16.08.2010 under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for the development of industrial area. The compensation of award was made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 after adhering to all other procedures o
Compensation for land acquired under the old Act must be determined using the provisions of the new Act if the award was not made before the new Act's commencement.
Acquisition of land – Where no award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply.
The acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed as the award was not passed within the one-year period mandated by the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding compensation inadequacy must be referred to the appropriate authority under the Act, underscoring the Collector's duty to comply with statutory timelines.
The date of approval of the land acquisition award determines the applicable compensation law, affirming entitlement under the 2013 Act when approved after its enactment.
The delay in approaching the court did not debar the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The demand for justice was compelling, and the court emphasized the....
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 dismissal of the petition due to delay and laches, highlighting the importance of timely legal action in seeking compensation for land acqui....
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
