Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
Govind Dayama S/o. Late Shri Dwarka Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Ajmer Development Authority – Respondent
Order :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.11.2024 a request was made to list this petition along-with SBCWP No.7480/2011. The contention is that the said petition pertains to acquisition of the land, whereas the present petition is filed aggrieved of seizure of the Marriage Garden and hence be dealt with separately.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is detached and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18148/2024 is taken up for hearing.
4. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority and the seizure order dated 22.10.2024.
5. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was running a Marriage Garden on an agricultural land situated at Tehsil Thok Teliyan, District Ajmer. The acquisition proceedings for the land in question were initiated by issuance of notification dated 04.12.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894. The challenge to the acquisition was made before this Court by filing a writ petition. An interim order was passed on 17.11.2011 that the proceedings for acquisition may be carried out but the petitioner sha
A petitioner running a Marriage Garden on agricultural land without necessary permissions cannot challenge a seizure order while an appeal is pending, as public safety considerations prevail.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
A third party has no locus to challenge land acquisition proceedings and only the owners of the land can seek compensation. Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition is a ground for refusing exercis....
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
Delay and latches can be grounds for dismissal of a writ petition, and a party seeking compensation enhancement cannot subsequently challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Possession must remain with the landowner for an application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to be maintainable; erroneous inclusion of mortgaged land invalidates acquisition.
An argument to contrary blurs boundary lines of schemes of acquisition envisaged under these statutes and thus, runs counter to scope of section 28 of 1966 Act.
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.
Acquisition proceedings lapse as government fails to take possession and pass awards within reasonable time; prior court liberties enable claims for de-notification.
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
