Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KUNAL RAVI SINGH, MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI
Sarvesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").
2. The instant writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2/ District Magistrate, District Kanpur Nagar.
(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority to pass afresh order regarding the compensation of the petitioners of Arazi No.82 area 0.1180 hectare and Gata No.503 area 0.1540 hectare situated at Village Bairi, Akbarpur Kachhar, District Kanpur Nagar at the present circle rate.
(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to make rehabilitation and resettlement award as per provisions of Act, 2013."
3. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "Act, 1894) in respect of area no
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.
The importance of public purpose in land acquisition, the conclusive and binding effect of previous orders, and the impact of delays and laches in approaching the court.
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 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....
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the consequences of delay and laches in approaching the court.
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
