Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.29 seconds)Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors on 24 January, 2014
16. Furthermore, the reliance placed on by the appellants/writ petitioners on Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act, i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (with effect from 01.01.2014), will have no bearing on the case on hand, though it is contended by the appellants/writ petitioners that they have been in possession as on date and also produced the house tax receipt in support of the same and though there was only paper possession on 11.06.1992, but ultimately, the physical possession was taken by the respondents/Government, which is evident from the telegram, dated 23.4.2003 sent by one of the land owners to the District Collector, Cuddalore, which shows that the land owner(s) have been dispossessed and the physical possession therefore vests with the respondents/Government. There is no material document produced by the appellants to prove their case that the possession vests with them subsequent to 23.04.2003, as there has been forcible possession on 23.04.2003, as seen from the said telegram. This itself shows that the respondents/Government is in possession of the lands in question. Hence, there is no question of application of Section 24(2) of the new Act, 2014 and there is no question of statutory lapse of acquisition proceedings. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others in Civil Appeal No.877 of 2014, arising out of S.L.P(C).No.30283 of 2008, etc., dated 24.01.2014, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, will also have no relevance to this case.
Jayachandran.C vs The High Court Of Kerala on 13 September, 2010
The compensation has also been kept in the Revenue Deposit in view of the fact that the land owners/writ petitioners did not receive the compensation. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioners that they have filed the present Writ Petitions on the subsequent cause of action, is not tenable, as the present acquisition proceedings were already sustained on contest in the earlier round of litigation as stated supra. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 1756 (Inacio Martins, deceased, through LRs. Vs. Narayan Hari Naik and others) and the Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 2010 (4) KLT 49 (Jayachandran.C. Vs. The High Court of Kerala), which are not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in this case, the acquisition proceedings were already sustained by this Court in the first round of litigation as stated supra and there is no material on record to substantiate the alleged new cause of action.
Dera Phalauli vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 July, 1979
15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894, as it stood prior to amendment by Act 68 of 1984, provided for invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, if and only if the lands to be acquired are waste or arable lands, as explained in that provision as per the Tamil Nadu Amendment. In this regard, it is worthwhile to notice the Notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 28.01.1982, wherein, the lands have been specifically stated to be "dry". Hence, the contention of the writ petitioners that there is no application of mind and there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the respondents while acquiring the lands, is not acceptable. Resultantly, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1594 (Dera Phalauli Vs. State of Punjab and others), the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1960 All.
J&K Housing Board & Anr vs Kanwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors on 4 November, 2011
(i) 2011 (10) SCC 714 (J & K Housing Board and another Vs. Kanwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others);