Back
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A. Royar – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.07.2022 made in W.P.No.20704 of 2014.)
1. We have heard Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The appellant has filed the writ petition for Declaration that the acquisition of lands of the writ petitioner bearing S.Nos.142/1 and 142/2 in Theethanipatti Village, acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and award pursuant thereto has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the possession of the land remains with the present appellant even after the award was passed. The compensation amount was never paid to the appellant or his father.
4. The notice under Section 12(2) that was issued also depicts that the writ petitioner's father was called upon to receive the amount. Though it is s
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 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.
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 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.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Where possession could not be taken due to stay order/pending litigation, matters are required to be remanded for fresh decision.
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
