Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar
T.Venkatesh @ T.Chinnabbiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its, Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S. Sounthar, J.
1. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking a declaration that Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 in respect of the petitioners land situated in Survey Nos.863, 864 and 844 of Chennathur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, covered by Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT ,1894, in G.O.Ms.No.890, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.05.1991 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.691, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 09.10.1992 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased house sites with small extent in a layout called as ‘Ragavendra Nagar’ situated in Survey Nos.863, 864 and 844 situated at Chennathur Village of Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District during the year 1988 and 1989 through registered Sale Deeds from previous owners. The 1st respondent issued 4(1) notification for acquisition of lands situated in Survey Nos.863, 864 and 844 for formation of Housing Scheme to be promoted by 2nd res
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Period during which interim order passed by Court is/was operative, has to be excluded in computation of five years’ period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compe....
Merely because there was an audit objection and a portion of the amount deposited was returned would not lead to the interference that the amount was not deposited.
The petition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 must meet the gap period of five years, and the physical possession and compensation tender must be valid. The essentiality of the land for public ....
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.
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
