Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

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