Back
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
B. Krishnakumar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.10.2021 made in W.P.No.33753 of 2017.)
1. We have heard Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for Mr.C.Veera Rahavan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2. The present appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge purportedly under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the land was acquired under the award dated 25.07.2005. The compensation amount is not paid nor the possession is taken by the respondents. In view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the acquisition stands lapsed.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the acquisition body has deposited the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents, during the pendency of the writ petition or prior to that, never relied upon
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 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 refusal of the landowners to receive the compensation can be a determining factor in the application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehab....
The failure to serve notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was fatal to the acquisition proceedings. Actual possession and tendering of compensation are essential to prevent lapse ....
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.
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
