Back
RAVI SHANKER JHA, ARUN PALLI
Sunita – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. - The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 17.09.2004 and 27.10.2004 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dated 09.03.2006 in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has also impugned the order dated 01.01.2017, vide which the claim of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been rejected by the respondents.
2. The controversy cropped up around interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 was put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 thereby laying down principles for declaring the acquisition as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013. The Apex Court has discussed in detail all the aspects necessary and relevant for interpreting Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, and in this regard a reference is being made to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below:-
'.... 1. Unde
The physical possession of the land and tendering of compensation discharge the state's obligation, and the land essential for public purpose cannot be released from acquisition.
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 ....
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....
The physical possession of the land and the tendering of compensation are essential conditions for the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
The main legal point established is that under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the lapse of acquisition proceedings is contingent upon the non-payment of compensation and non-possession of the land....
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
