Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Shiv Kumar VS Union of India...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1143 : Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are deemed to have lapsed only if an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. However, in this case, physical possession was taken on 12.5.2000, which means the acquisition did not lapse. Furthermore, a purchaser who acquires land after notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is not entitled to any rights, including claiming that the acquisition has lapsed, as such transactions are void ab initio. Therefore, even if mutation was not done in favor of the government and possession was not taken for over 40 years, the acquisition cannot be considered ''''banded'''' or lapsed if possession was lawfully taken at any point, and the claim by a subsequent purchaser based on a void transaction cannot be allowed.Checking relevance for Delhi Development Authority VS Jagan Singh...
Checking relevance for Meera Sahni VS Lt. Governor of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Mahavir VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Delhi Development Authority VS Reena Suri...
2016 3 Supreme 295 : Under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession of land is not taken within five years or more prior to 01.01.2014 (the date the 2013 Act came into force), despite the passing of the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition lapses. This means that even if an award has been passed, failure to take possession within the stipulated time frame results in the acquisition being deemed lapsed, regardless of whether mutation has been done in favor of the government. Therefore, if possession has not been taken for over 40 years, the acquisition would be considered lapsed and effectively ''''banned'''' or extinguished under the 2013 Act.Checking relevance for Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. ...
2020 5 Supreme 194 : Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, acquisition proceedings lapse only if an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act (1.1.2014) and neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid. However, if possession has been taken (even decades ago), the acquisition is not considered lapsed merely because mutation was not done or possession was not taken for 40 years. The vesting of land in the Government occurs upon taking possession, which is established by drawing a panchnama, and once possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The fact that mutation was not done does not affect the validity of the acquisition. Furthermore, Section 24(2) does not apply to acquisitions completed decades ago, and it cannot be used to revive or question the validity of concluded proceedings, including those from the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be considered ''''banded'''' simply because mutation was not done and possession was not taken for 40 years, especially if possession was lawfully taken earlier.Checking relevance for DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SUKHBIR SINGH...
2016 7 Supreme 7 : The acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be considered non est (not valid) if possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid or deposited for a period of five years or more after the award, even if no mutation has been done in favor of the government. In this case, possession was taken over four decades after the notification under Section 4, and compensation was not paid even after 13 years of taking possession, leading to the acquisition being held non est. The key factor is not the absence of mutation but the failure to complete essential steps—possession and payment/deposit of compensation—within the statutory period, which triggers the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.Checking relevance for Pandurang Pandit Borhade VS Rajesh B. Deshmukh...
Pandurang Pandit Borhade VS Rajesh B. Deshmukh - Current Civil Cases (2022)
: Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed if an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act (2013) and physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. However, the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. has held that drawing of Panchanama (record of taking possession) is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases, and once possession is taken, the land vests in the Government. Any re-entry or retention of possession thereafter is unlawful. In the present case, possession of the land was taken (as evidenced by the possession receipt), and therefore, the acquisition did not lapse despite the absence of mutation in favor of the Government and the passage of over 40 years. Thus, the acquisition cannot be considered ''''banned'''' or lapsed merely due to lack of mutation and non-takeover of possession over 40 years, because possession was lawfully taken through Panchanama, which vests the land in the Government.
