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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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