Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High 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