Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.B. Balaji, J
M. Sabapathi – Appellant
Versus
District Collector Cum Arbitrator, Dindigul – Respondent
ORDER :
(P.B. BALAJI, J.)
The writ petitioners seek issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of First Schedule of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 in compliance of Section 105(3) of the Act 2013.
2. I have heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 2 and 5 and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that all these writ petitioners were owners of the respective lands situated at Ottanchathiram Village, Dindigul District, and since the Government of India intended to acquire the lands for formation of Four lanes by-pass road, etc., a Notification came to be issued on 17.07.2008, in terms of which the second respondent was designated as the competent authority. The learned Senior Counsel would s
The court held that delay in seeking re-determination of compensation barred the petitioners' claims, emphasizing that executive guidelines cannot override statutory provisions.
The court ruled that completed acquisitions cannot be reopened or compensated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as finality under the National Highways Act, 1956 was achieved.
Schedule-II deals with elements like provision of housing units in case of displacement, land for land, offer for developed land, choice of Annuity of employment, Subsistence grant for displaced fami....
The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, apply to land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, requiring a detailed examination of indivi....
Writ petitioners are not entitled to compensation since awards were announced before the cutoff date, irrespective of their later payments.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding compensation inadequacy must be referred to the appropriate authority under the Act, underscoring the Collector's duty to comply with statutory timelines.
The court clarified that under the relevant Land Acquisition Act, compensation must include both land and structures, and both should accrue 12% interest, rejecting any limitations imposed by governm....
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
