Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Naresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)
The petitioners purchased the writ lands, post the culmination of the proceedings, under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short hereinafter called as the 'Act of 1894'). Therefore, prima facie, the acquisition of any right, title or interest, through registered deeds of conveyance, as became executed in favour of the present petitioners, by the vendor, but are tainted and flawed. The reason being that on culmination of acquisition proceedings, as became initiated in respect of the petition lands under the 'Act of 1894', rather thereby there is complete divestment of any right, title or interest in the petitioners'-vendors over the petition lands.
2. The writ petitioners had earlier accessed this Court for quashing of notifications for acquisition, as became respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 'Act of 1894' and which became respectively issued on 22.02.2007 and on 20.02.2008. However, the said claim, as is evident on a reading of the operative part of the order (Annexure P-11), as made on the said writ petition, to which CWP No. 16371 of 2013, became assigned, operative portion whereof is extracted hereinafter, rather became
The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the consequences of delay and laches in approaching the court.
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is contingent upon the timing of possession of acquired lands and the deposit of compensation....
The conclusive and binding effect of previous verdicts, estoppel, and lack of entitlement based on delayed challenges.
Writ petitions challenging acquisitions after award pronouncement are non-maintainable.
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.
A petitioner lacking locus standi cannot challenge acquisition notifications as valid public interest considerations prevail.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of statutory provisions and legal principles governing land acquisition and release of acquired lands.
Land acquisition requires adherence to statutory procedures; failure to file objections negates claims of discrimination or exemption, and public necessity prevails over private interests.
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
