Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, AMARJOT BHATTI
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the notification(s) Annexure P-2, and, Annexure P-3, as became respectively issued on 15.11.2002, and, 12.11.2003, hence in terms of sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'), thus inviting the mandate of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'. In alternate, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus being made upon the respondents concerned, to issue notification under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, thus notifying the release of the petition lands from acquisition.
Grounds raised in the instant petition
2. The grounds, as raised in the instant petition by the petitioner, are that the land of the petitioner i.e. 1 bigha 9 biswas and 18 biswasis was sought to be acquired vide the impugned notifications. It is further averred in the p
The court affirmed the validity of land acquisition notifications, ruling that the petitioner was estopped from claiming release due to prior compliance and lack of challenge to earlier orders.
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 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 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.
A petitioner lacking locus standi cannot challenge acquisition notifications as valid public interest considerations prevail.
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
