MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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