Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

Land Acquisition Proceedings Not Lapsed Due to Possession or Compensation, Rules Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, 11th April 2023: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that land acquisition proceedings for the construction of the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun Highway, a project of national importance, have not lapsed. The judgment, delivered in the case of Land and Building Department through Secretary & Anr. v. Attro Devi & Ors., clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The case revolved around a writ petition filed by Attro Devi and others, who argued that the acquisition of their land had lapsed as neither possession nor compensation had been provided. The High Court had ruled in their favor, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision.

The apex court referred to its previous Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, where it was held that satisfaction of either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the possession of the land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was complete, satisfying one of the conditions for saving the acquisition. The court further emphasized that the subject land was required for the construction of the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun Highway, which is part of the Phase-I of Bharatmala Pariyojana.

While setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to ensure that the respondents receive the rightful compensation as per their entitlement.

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for land acquisition cases, providing clarity on the conditions for the lapse of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act. It also highlights the importance of national infrastructure projects and the need to strike a balance between development and landowners' rights.

The decision by the Supreme Court will enable the smooth progress of the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun Highway project, contributing to improved connectivity and infrastructure in the region.

Date of Judgment: 11th April 2023

LAND AND BUIILDING DEPARTMENT vs THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.  ATTRO DEVI & ORS.                   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/11-Apr-2023-LAND-AND-BUILDING-DEPARTMENT-Vs-ATTRO-DEVI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News