Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition in U.P. Due to Non-Compliance with Notice Requirements under the 1965 Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has quashed the land acquisition process concerning a plot in Lucknow due to non-compliance with notice requirements, as mandated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The judgment, delivered by Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in land acquisition matters.

The crux of the judgment lies in the examination of compliance with statutory notice requirements under the 1965 Act. The court scrutinized the need for a pre-acquisition notice and the right of affected parties to object to the acquisition, asserting that failure to adhere to these procedures invalidates the acquisition process.

 

The appeal by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad challenged a High Court judgment quashing the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 in the village Hariharpur, Lucknow. The High Court had found that the tenure holders were not given an opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition, a requirement under Section 29 of the 1965 Act.

The Supreme Court observed, "In the absence of any public or individual notice proposing to acquire Khasra No. 673, we find merit in the cause espoused on behalf of the respondents." This observation underlines the court's stance on the necessity of proper notice to affected parties. The court declined to resolve the title dispute but acknowledged that the lack of notice deprived respondents of the opportunity to object, thus vitiating the acquisition process.

While the acquisition process for Khasra No. 673 was held invalid, the court directed that compensation should be assessed as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This aligns the compensation process with contemporary standards. Additionally, the court provided guidelines for handling the compensation amount amid title disputes and maintaining the status quo regarding the land.

The appeal was disposed of with directions for the appropriate government to follow certain procedures under the 2013 Act. The awarded compensation amount is to be kept in an FDR in a nationalized bank until the resolution of the title dispute.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2024

 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Chandra Shekhar and Ors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/05-Mar-2024-UP-Avas-Vs-Chandra-Shekhar-Civil.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News