Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Rajbir – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The instant writ petition is cast to reap the relief(s) qua annulment of the lawfully terminated acquisition proceedings, as launched under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The relief(s) (supra) is craved upon the fundamentals of the lapsing provisions, as enshrined in Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013').
Factual Background
2. The petition lands were brought to acquisition, by the respondent- State, through issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, on 11.11.2002, which was succeeded by the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, on 07.11.2003. Ultimately, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petition lands were lawfully terminated through pronouncement of an award bearing No.6, on 28.10.2005, and, through assumption of possession of the acquired lands on the same day vide Rapat No.123. However, since the petitioners admittedly did refuse to receive the determined compensation amount, therefore it was dep
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....
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid.
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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
