land acquisition act

This tag is associated with 32 posts

Whether the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner, a housing society, to Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) under the relevant Development Control Regulations (DCR) i.e. N-2.4 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”)., rejected is correct = The rejection of the claim of the respondent Society to TDR under the MRTP Act read with DCR N-2.4.17 is seriously flawed. =2014- Oct.Part -CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3008-3009 OF 2010 PUNE MUNICIPA


Contempt of Court = Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information T.C.GUPTA & ANR Vs. HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40876

Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information to the High Court may not amount to     contempt of court  – Apex court set aside the orders of High court =        .  Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to              one aspect … Continue reading

suit for specific performance of compromise order = compromise was arrived at, whereby, the respondent No.2 agreed to re-convey the land to the extent of 1.16 acres to the appellant. This was on the condition that the respondent No.2 would use the remaining 1 acre land for building the administrative block. The appellant was also required to use the re-conveyed parcel of land for industrial purposes. = Thus, there was no breach of the compromise on the part of the Government which would necessitate her to file a suit for specific performance. Once it is held that the Government retracted its steps well in time, there could not be any decree of specific performance based on the alleged breach of the compromise. ; non-issue of the notice under Section 80 could not be permitted to be raised for the first time in the second appeal, when this contention was not raised seriously at any stage earlier.

 publisehd in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40721 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2006   Tarabai (Dead) Through L.Rs. … Appellant (s) Versus Govt. of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondent (s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3789-3791 OF 2007 J U D G E M E N T H.L. Gokhale J. These appeals are … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act = When the land is in developed area , deduction of 10 % is appropriate but the deduction of 1/3rd in market value is harsh =deduction of 1/3rd value of the land would be very harsh on the appellants because the appellants would be getting substantially less compensation on account of the said deduction. It was also submitted that the High Court had taken note of the fact that the land in question was very much within the developed area. If the land was within the developed area, the High Court should not have deducted 1/3rd of the value of the land in question.= Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd of the value of the land is definitely harsh even as per the observations made by the High Court as the land in question is very much in the developed area. The area has been developed by the HUDA and therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd of the value of the land is not justified. Upon considering all relevant facts, in our opinion, it would be absolutely just if 10% value of the land is deducted instead of 1/3rd because the land is forming part of a well developed area.= The market value of the land in question, as determined by the High Court, is Rs. 11.15 lacs per acre and instead of taking 1/3rd, we direct that 10% of the said value shall be deducted. The claimants shall be entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium, interest etc. on the enhanced compensation.

 published in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40661 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24357 of 2010) Indraj Singh (Dead) …..Appellants through LRs. & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. …..Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6959 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Actappellant- sec.4 notification, sec.6 and award can be challenged before taking possession with in reasonable time – Notice at locality is mandatory – no company and it’s site can be acquired for industrial purpose = Company itself is running an industry on the date of the notification, we are of the view that there is no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area.- In view of the above, it is clear that in spite of knowing the specific ground raised by the appellant about the non- publication of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned, neither the State nor the Land Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity of filing reply refuting the same. In such circumstances, we have no other option except to hold that there was no publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality which is held to be mandatory. It is also relevant to point out that by effecting such publication in the locality, it would be possible for the person in possession, namely, either the owner or lessee to make their representation/objection in the enquiry under Section 5A. In addition to the same, such person “owner or occupier” is entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the date of publication in the locality and by non-publication of the same in the locality as provided under the Act, the owner or occupier loses his valuable right. For these reasons also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.= Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 08.07.2008 and quash the land acquisition proceedings insofar as the appellant-Company is concerned.

 published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40657       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6792 OF 2013 3 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19869 of 2008)   M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana & Ors. …. Respondent(s)     J U … Continue reading

claimants are entitled to same compensation fixed already on relied judgement in the absence of negative grounds= in Balbir Singh’s case the value of the land was fixed to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha. We are, therefore, of the view that while every other reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was fixed in Balbir Singh’s case was justified, there is no need to deduct any amount from the said value, in as much as the exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh’s case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to 22.07.1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz., 01.08.1983, which notification pertains to the lands belonging to the appellants which were situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur village. = The appeals stand partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the Division Bench of the High Court to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in respect of both categories of land. With the above modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly allowed. Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for consequential benefits as per the law, if any.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40474 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2005 Premwati …. Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2005 Rajinder Singh (D) by Lrs. …. Appellants VERSUS Delhi College of Engineering ….Respondent J U D G M E N T … Continue reading

whether the conclusion recorded by the Reference Court, which has been approved by the High Court that the application filed by the appellant was barred by time is legally sustainable. A careful reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8.4.1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that copy of the award was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding issue No.3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the 1Page 13 application filed on 8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b).

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3430 OF 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.34815/2011) Premji Nathu … Appellant Versus State of Gujarat and another … Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether the application submitted by the appellant under … Continue reading

just relief to the builders etc., even though the acquisition was quashed and approved by Apex court=In the result, the appeals are dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that some of the members of the appellant may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, we give liberty to the appellant to negotiate with the respondents for purchase of their land at the prevailing market price and hope that the landowners will, notwithstanding the judgments of the High Court and this Court, agree to accept the market price so that those who have

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7425-26 OF 2002 Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. … Appellant versus State of Karnataka and others … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 774-778 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. These appeals … Continue reading

Land Acquisition case payment of interest =whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking over of the possession of the land in question or from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification ?=The petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over possession of their land and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum for the remaining period, till compensation amount is paid

HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No 848 of 2011 & WRIT PETITION C No 1034 of 2011 Manoj Modi & Another Arjunlal …Petitioners VERSUS   State of Chhattisgarh & Others …Respondents   ! Shri Rupesh Shrivastava Advocate for the petitioners ^ Shri V V S Moorthy Deputy Advocate General for the … Continue reading

land acquisition – when to invoke urgent clause – The series of events shows lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of the State Government. In the light of the above circumstances, the respondents are not justified in invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act, thereby depriving the appellants of their valuable right to raise objections and opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to persuade them that their property may not be acquired

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6293 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15151 of 2011) Devendra Singh & Ors. ………….. Appellants versus State of U.P. & Ors. ………..Respondents J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. Leave granted. 2). This appeal, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,903,094 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com