SANJAY DWIVEDI
Rooplal – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. Pleadings are complete. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking following relief:-
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A.Act) dated 14.6.1978 whereby the land of the petitioner was said to be acquired and further notification u/s 6 was issued on 22.7.1978 (Annexure P-3);
(ii) Call for the records and proceedings of Appeal Case No.0044/Appeal/2021-22 from the file of learned respondent No.2, Case No.057/Appeal/2021-2022 from the file of learned respondent No.5 and Case No.518/B121/2020-21 from the file of learned Court of respondent No.6 for their perusal;
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure-P/15) passed by the Court of Additional Collector, DistrictChhindwara in Revenue Case No.0044/Appeal/2021-22 and order dated 16.8.2021 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Court of respondent No.5 in Case No.057/Appeal/2021-2022 and order dated 12.7.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Court of respondent No.6 in Case
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
Subsequent purchasers of land after the issuance of acquisition notifications cannot challenge the acquisition, and delay in filing a petition to challenge an acquisition should be viewed seriously.
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
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 judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.