Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI
Vinay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chandra Princ. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. – Respondent
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 22.2.1984 respectively.
2. The applicant/petitioner claims that he has not yet been paid compensation for the aforesaid plots and the State or its agencies were not in actual physical possession of the acquired plots. It is claimed by the petitioner/applicant that he has always been in actual and physical possession of the acquired plots. It appears from the pleadings and the documents annexed with the affidavit of the parties, and also from the previous orders of this Court, that the plots were in
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and compensation payme....
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
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
