Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Phooleshwari Pandre – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Copper Ltd. Malaj Khand Copper Project – Respondent
ORDER
1. By this common order, M.P. No.459/2022, M.P. No.461/2022, M.P. No.462/2022, M.P. No.464/2022, M.P. No.465/2022 & M.P. No.467/2022 shall be decided. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.P. No.459/2022 shall be referred.
2. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2020 passed by Additional Collector Baihar, District Balaghat in Revenue Appeal Case No.0029/Appeal/2019-20.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions in short are that certain pieces of land were acquired in the year 1977 for establishment of the respondent – M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. Malajkhand Copper Project, Tehsil Deosar, District Balaghat. The draft notification as well as the final notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act was not challenged by the petitioners.
4. It is the case of the respondent that even the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was also accepted by the petitioners without any protest. Jobs which were offered to the petitioners because of the acquisition of their lands were also accepted. Thereafter, it appears that under some misguided advice, the petitioners filed a
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 principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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 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....
The court emphasized that the acquisition for an industrial area could benefit a single company, and that delay in passing an award cannot be solely attributed to the authorities if the records were ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should not be available to litigants who have obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring a....
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to delay and laches in filing writ petitions, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the Land Acquisit....
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a self-contained code, and the timely assertion of rights is crucial in exercising discretionary jurisdiction.
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
