Back
SUJOY PAUL, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
VISHNU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. – In these batch of Writ Appeals challenge is made to the common order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 3250/2017 and other connected matters decided on 2nd November, 2020 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants were dismissed. It was held that land acquisition proceedings have not at all lapsed, even if the petitioners have not received the compensation. A specific finding was given in the impugned order that in the present cases, compensation was deposited with the land acquisition officer and the question of granting relief to the petitioners, especially in the light of the fact that entire project is complete does not arise. The liberty was reserved to the petitioners to receive compensation in accordance with law if not received so far.
2. Shri K. L. Hardia, learned counsel for appellants contended that notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) was defective. The said notification was issued on 16-2-2007 whereas notification under section 6 of the said Act was issued on 9-2-2007. By no stretch of imagination, section 4 Notification can be issued after issuance of section 6 not
Relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.
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....
(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....
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Period during which interim order passed by Court is/was operative, has to be excluded in computation of five years’ period.
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
