Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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