Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Pankaj Manga – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of notification bearing No. LAC (F)-92/NTLA/179 dated 10.12.1992 (Annexure P-1), and, also seek the quashing of notification bearing No. LAC (F)-NTLA-93/245 dated 07.12.1993 (Annexure P-3). The said notification(s) were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') thus for the public purpose namely, development of residential Sectors 1 and 2, Palwal.2. The principal ground as raised in the instant writ petition rather by the petitioners for theirs seeking the writ reliefs, is grounded in the factum, that the subject properties, though became raised on the disputed lands but prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894' yet the acquiring authority not releasing them from acquisition.
3. Moreover, the further ground as raised in the instant writ petition rather for challenging the Annexures (supra), is rested, on the premise that the acquiring authority in not releasing the subject lands from acquisition, thereby it has breached the mandate of this Court recorded on 03.02.2012, upon CWP No. 15546 of 199
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 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 emphasized the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the consequences of delay and laches in approaching the court.
The court held that the Acquiring Authority did not meet the conditions for lapsing provisions under the Act of 2013, allowing the petitions for land compensation.
In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment ....
No lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made.
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
