Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

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"]

 

Similar News