Back
S. S. SUNDAR, S. SRIMATHY
Principal Secretary to Government, Public (Military) Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
K. Johnson – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order of this Court, dated 14.06.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.9070 of 2018.
The issue to be decided is about the validity, legality and constitutionality of the proposal to initiate acquisition by invoking the urgency clause under Section 40 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these cases are as follows :
Writ Appeals :-
2. The Writ Petitioners/respondents in these Writ Appeals are owners of small extent of lands out of an extent of 7.28.50 Hectares, in respect of which, the first appellant has issued G.O.Ms.No.148, Public (Military), Department, dated 23.02.2018, insofar as the acquisition in respect of the Writ Petitioners' land is concerned. As per the said Government Order, the acquisition was proposed for re-habilitation package for the displaced Inayathukanpatti villagers invoking urgency provisions of the Act.
3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant
The excessive use of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, due to the State's inaction in starting the project, rendered the invocation of the provision unsustainable and viol....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for justifying the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the burden of proof on the party ....
A valid application of urgency clause requires the existence of genuine urgency, which was not met in this case, necessitating the quashing of the acquisition notifications.
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 court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
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
