Back
ALOK MATHUR
Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
Heard Sri Nitesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel and Sri Sachin Upadhyay for the respondents.
2. The Petitioner who had been allotted a plot from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GNIDA) has disputed the handing over of the possession of the said plot and has claimed benefit of the zero period policy of the respondents. The respondents on the other hand have rejected his claim of possession and proceeded to levy penalty and notice for cancellation of the allotment of the plot, and even the revision preferred before the State Government has been rejected leading to the present writ petition.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued by the State Government for acquisition of land of 589.188 Ha. situated at village Patwari, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. Subsequent to the acquisition, the land was developed and offered for allotment of institutional plots for setting up educational hub, University, Training centers, School
Actual physical possession must be established for lease obligations; mere issuance of possession certificate is insufficient.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in approaching the Court can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition, especially in cases where possession of the land has b....
Once land has been acquired, it cannot be restored to tenure- holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is so acquired. Once possession of land has been taken, i....
Acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid.
No reasonable explanation being given by the petitioners for such inordinate delay, this court should not go into the stale demand of the petitioners after lapse of years.
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
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
