Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI
Vinay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chandra Princ. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition details and compensation claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interpretation of section 24(2) of the act, 2013. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. claim for compliance with previous court orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments about judicial ambiguity and contempt. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. overruling of precedent and its implications. (Para 11 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. final directive on compliance and potential contempt charges. (Para 22 , 45 , 46) |
| 7. the obligation to implement court orders. (Para 36 , 38 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
1. The petitioner/applicant claims himself to be a co-sharer and Bhumidhar with transferable rights in Plot Nos. 240 (area 0.3880 hectare), 242M (area 0.5530 hectare), 243 (area 0.0260 hectare) and 245 (area 0.0500 hectare) in the revenue village Bhairopur, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District-Allahabad. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1894’) for acquisition of the aforesaid plots was published on 20.7.1977. The notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published on 03.10.1977. The award and the supplementary award regarding compensation for land acquired were declared on21.08.1982 and 22.2.
Court held that non-payment of compensation to landowners results in lapse of acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper deposit per statutory requirements.
Contempt proceedings cannot substitute for enforcement of binding court decisions; non-compliance must involve clear disregard of valid orders. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is limited to ens....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
Land acquisition - No notice was issued to the writ petitioners before compensation amount was deposited by way of revenue deposit, the same would not result in compensation being payable in terms of....
The appellant committed contempt by willfully disobeying a court order directing the deposit of compensation, emphasizing the imperative for compliance with judicial directives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the appellant was prevented from taking possession due to in....
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
