Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ
Roshan Shrikant Tandel – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner-Konkan Division – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land never acquired: no award or possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue delay, laches, compensation method. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. admitted: subject land omitted from award, possession. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. proceedings lapsed under section 11a, la act. (Para 16) |
| 5. not computational error; no la act relief. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. delay irrelevant after statutory lapse, minor status. (Para 19) |
| 7. article 300a violated sans lawful authority. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. acquire under 2013 act within one year. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGEMENT : (Per Justice Manish Pitale
1.The petitioner in this petition contends that in the light of an admitted position on facts that the subject land located in Survey No.106/6 was never acquired and compensation was not paid, the respondents need to undertake steps for acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). It is the case of the petitioner that even though notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) and declaration under Section 6 thereof were issued in the context
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
