Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
Vani – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Chandru in W.P. No. 11645 of 1999.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Chandru in W.P. No. 20340 of 1999.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents particularly 1st respondent to re-convey the lands in S. No. 187/1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 187/3, Land Acquisition 188 Alamelumangapuram Housing Scheme, Vellore admeasuring 3.70 acres from the acquisition proceedings notified under Section 4(1) of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 685, Housing and Development dated 29.04.1984 and published in Government Gazette dated 19.09.1984, in exercise of its power under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.
1. The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 19.11.2008 passed in W.P. Nos. 11645 & 20340 of 1999.
2. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants before us.
3. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board proposed to acquire larger extent of land in
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession....
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
