Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Bhola Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since all the writ petitions arise from a common notification, and, a common declaration, as became issued respectively under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’) and as became respectively issued on 27.01.2003 and on 23.01.2004. Moreover, since all the writ petitions are covered by common thereto awards, as became passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned, in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from the lead writ petition, i.e. CWP-601-2006.
2. The grounds, as raised in the writ petition, are that (i) since earlier to the making of the notification (supra), the disputed lands were exempted from acquisition, thereby the extantly issued notification for acquisition, makes palpable emergence qua the launched acquisition proceedings, rather being drawn through colourable exercise of the power of eminent domain, by the respondents concerned: (ii) that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 were summarily decided and without any adequate oppo
The public purpose of developmental activities outweighs private individual interests in land acquisition cases.
The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the consequences of delay and laches in approaching the court.
The conclusive and binding effect of previous verdicts, estoppel, and lack of entitlement based on delayed challenges.
The importance of public purpose in land acquisition, the conclusive and binding effect of previous orders, and the impact of delays and laches in approaching the court.
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
The judgment establishes the importance of physical possession and disbursement of compensation in determining the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
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
