District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Land Acquisition Proceedings Not Lapsed, Twin Statutory Ingredients Fulfilled: Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling, dismissed a writ petition filed by Rattan Lal and others against the State of Haryana. The petitioners had sought the quashing of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for the development of Sector 57 in Gurugram.

The bench comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Kuldeep Tiwari ruled that the acquiring authority had satisfied the "twin statutory ingredients" needed to prevent the lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings.

"Consequently, in view of the written statement, it is clear that thereby accomplishment is secured by the twin statutory ingredients," Justice Sureshwar Thakur noted in paragraph 11 of the judgment.

The judgment revealed that the compensation amount was tendered and available for disbursement, thereby fulfilling one of the requirements under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The court also found that possession of the acquired lands had been assumed by the acquiring authority, thus meeting the second statutory requirement.

"The possession of the acquired lands, vide Rapat No.569 recorded on 21.07.2003, thus becoming assumed by the acquiring authority concerned," the court noted in paragraph 9 of the decision.

The matter had earlier reached the Supreme Court, which remanded it to the High Court for fresh consideration in line with the law laid down in "Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal".

Justice Thakur also noted that the petitioners' lands are earmarked for public purpose and are being utilized for facilitating the apposite public purpose, affecting 12 mtr. service road, 30 mtr. sector dividing road and 1 no. clinic site or 1 nursery school, as per the development plan.

The verdict puts to rest a legal tussle that had spanned several years, affirming the state’s authority to acquire the lands for the stated public purposes.

Date of Decision: 09.10.2023

RATTAN LAL AND OTHERS  vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Rattan_Lal_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana_And_Ors_on_9_October_2023-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News