Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Balram Ji Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
By the Court.-Heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for Gorakhpur Development Authority (GDA).
2. The impleadment application is allowed. Let the necessary impleadment be carried out forthwith.
3. Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondents to release the acquired land on which the houses of petitioners are situated bearing Khasra Nos. 883, 732, 644, 726, 598, 601, 872, 736, 588, 696, 695, 587, 565 and 576 of Revenue Village Manbela, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Gorakhpur under Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Act, 1973) and for a further direction to respondents to decide pending representations of petitioners within stipulated period.
4. This much is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are the owners of land in question. The State Government had taken recourse under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) for acquiring the
The court established that land acquired for public purpose cannot be restored to the original owners once possession is taken, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.
1. The power under Section 17 (4) is an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acq....
Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
The main legal point established is that the acquisition proceedings can lapse under Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act if the award is not passed within the specified period. Additionally, the cou....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
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
