Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Notifications Issued Under Land Acquisition Act of 1894 Quashed: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Emphasizes Impermissibility of Delegated Powers in Land Acquisition Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh quashed notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to the acquisition of land belonging to Mahant Shri Murari Mal Baba Trust. The Court emphasized the impermissibility of delegated powers in land acquisition cases, aligning with the expostulation of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Brar’s case.

The case involved the acquisition of land donated for the construction of Gita Bhawan Mandir in Chandigarh. Despite objections from the petitioner trust, the Chandigarh Administration proceeded with the acquisition, issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core issue revolved around whether these notifications, which were not directly signed by the Administrator but by the Secretary Engineering, were valid.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra observed, “It is impermissible for the Administrator to delegate the function of ‘the Appropriate Government’ to any subordinate.” The Court found that the notifications lacked the necessary application of mind required at the stage of initiation of acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, it was held that the ex-post facto validation of these notifications was legally unsustainable, especially since the Act of 1894 was repealed by the Act of 2013.

The judgment reinforced the legal principle that delegating powers vested in the Administrator to a subordinate, in matters of land acquisition, is flawed and does not confer validity on the proceedings. It also highlighted the principle against the retrospective application of laws, especially when affecting existing rights.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notifications and the award. It also directed the petitioner to maintain the status quo regarding the creation of third-party rights and not to change the nature of the land for one year, allowing the State the opportunity to reacquire the land if needed for a public purpose.

Date of Decision: 31st January 2024

Mahant Shri Murari Mal Baba Trust vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

Latest Legal News