Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Represented by its Chairman – Appellant
Versus
A. L. Arumugam (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.28699 of 2014 dated 08.01.2015.]
The present Intra-Court appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 08.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.28699 of 2014.
2. The land acquisition proceedings are quashed by the Writ Court and challenging the same, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board preferred the present writ appeal.
3. Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that by merely referring the acquisition proceedings of the adjacent land, the Writ Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings, which is untenable. The due process followed in the present case by the authorities competent are not considered by the Writ Court. Thus, the Housing Board preferred the present appeal.
4. The fact remains that Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 09.05.1975. 4(1) Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte on 11.06.1975. Draft declaratio
Subsequent purchasers of land acquired under the 1894 Act cannot claim rights under the 2013 Act as their transactions are void.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent buyer of property after issuance of notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
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.
Non-deposit of compensation does not automatically result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the Old Act, as clarified by the court.
A subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition if possession has been taken over before their purchase.
Subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation ....
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 does not confer a new cause of action to challenge concluded acquisition p....
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
