Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

Once the award approved - compensation paid and possession of the land handed over to the Government - acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened .-SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Government of Assam, in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'L.A. Act') acquired 1,166 biggas, 1 katha, 14 lessas of land of the aforesaid Gillapukri Tea Estate. L.A Case No. 1 of 2008 was also initiated for the purpose of acquisition before the District Collector, Tinsukia. The controversy between the parties before us is whether approval of both the award and the estimate or only the estimate. The first respondent has not disputed the issuance of the preliminary and final notification. It is contended that no award was approved pursuant to the letter dated 05.03.2010.This, in the first respondent's view, led to lapsing of the proceedings and initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in 2012. The first respondent contends that a comparison of this approval letter dated 06.01.2014 with the original acquisition proceedings would clearly indicate that only the estimate was approved and not the award. The first respondent has approached the Deputy Commissioner to seek a fresh award by determining the compensation payable in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The State Government contends that the need for an additional award arose only because some of the landowners initially proposed to be acquired were left out in the original award that was approved on 05.03.2010.  Supreme Court held Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government., if land already stands acquired by the Government and if the same stands vested in the Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land. that once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. Appeal Allowed 

D.D On January 28, 2021.

ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS  GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. ETC.

Latest Legal News