Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Godavari – Appellant
Versus
Narmada Valley Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 13.8.2020, passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.3921 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking relief in the nature of lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated against them earlier, by invoking section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013'), has been dismissed by holding that the compensation was tendered by notice issued under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The contention of the appellants is that there is no evidence available on record that the said notice was ever served to the predecessor in title of the land in question from whom the appellants derive their title.
4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the father of the appellants late Shri Ranchod Patidar was the owner of an agricultural land situated at Survey No.86/1 ad-measuring 1.206 hectare at Gram Nisarpur, Tehsil Kukshi, District Dhar. On 9.2.2002 the aforesa
Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) if compensation is deposited in court, even if possession is not taken, unless the landowners can prove deprivation of compensation.
Land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) when compensation is not paid and possession is not taken for over five years, clarifying definitions of 'paid' and 'deposited'.
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 physical possession of the land and tendering of compensation discharge the state's obligation, and the land essential for public purpose cannot be released from acquisition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceeding does not lapse under Sec. 24 of RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013 if the compensation for the acquired land is already depos....
The interpretation of Section 24(2) clarified the conditions for lapsing of acquisition proceedings and emphasized that Section 24(2) does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legalit....
The main legal point established is that under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, the lapse of acquisition proceedings is contingent upon the non-payment of compensation and non-possession of the land....
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 contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compe....
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
