Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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