Property Allotted In Lieu Of Ancestral Land Left In Pakistan Retains Coparcenary Character; Karta Cannot Gift It Away: Punjab & Haryana HC Bail Applicant Under 'Solemn Obligation' To Disclose Criminal History; Material Suppression Disentitles Discretionary Relief: Orissa High Court Mother Surreptitiously Marrying Away Daughter Without Father’s Knowledge Amount To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Grants Divorce Time Is Generally Not The Essence Of Contract In Sale Of Immovable Property; Unilateral Notice Cannot Alter Mutually Agreed Terms: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Use Of Surname No Defence If Adoption Is Dishonest & Causes Confusion In Pharma Trade: Delhi High Court Restrains 'Reddy Pharmaceuticals' Complainant’s Failure To Provide Specific Loan Details & Evidence Of Parties' Involvement In Ponzi Scheme Rebuts Section 139 NI Act Presumption: Calcutta High Court Statutory Mandate Of Section 17-B: Payment Of Minimum Wages Means Revised Rates From Time To Time, Not Frozen Amount: Delhi High Court Reporting Court Proceedings & Good Faith Complaints To Authorities Not Defamation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Order Appointment Obtained Via Fraud Vitiates Initial Entry; Article 311 Protection Not Available To Such Employees: Allahabad High Court Surviving Spouse’s Elevation To Second In Line Of Succession Not ‘Manifestly Arbitrary’: Bombay High Court Upholds Goa Succession Act Amendments Patent Rights Stand Exhausted Once Components Are Sourced From Authorized Market Dealers; Royalty Cannot Be Calculated On Entire Product: Delhi High Court FCI Cannot Unilaterally Reduce Rent Or Recover 'Excess' Payment Without Landlord's Consent & Notice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Judicial Sanctity Cannot Be Given To Adulterous Relationships; No Habeas Corpus For Married Woman Living With Husband: Himachal Pradesh High Court Recoveries From Open Spaces Without Proof Of Concealment Don't Qualify Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Large Time Gap In 'Last Seen Together' Theory Snaps Chain Of Circumstances; Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Non-Recovery Of Mobile Phone Or Video Not Fatal To Criminal Intimidation Charge If Victim's Testimony Is Credible: Supreme Court Threat To Upload Private Video Online Violates Woman's Sexual Autonomy, Amounts To 'Imputing Unchastity' Under Sec 506 IPC: Supreme Court Intention To Kill Essential For Section 307 IPC Conviction; Nature Of Injury Not Sole Determinant: Supreme Court Intention To Commit Murder Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Injury Was Dangerous To Life: Supreme Court Alters Conviction To Section 325 IPC Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused Who Absconded For 42 Days Post-Bail Revocation; Says Contumacious Conduct Bars Fresh Relief High Court Cannot Grant Fresh Bail By Ignoring Supreme Court’s Earlier Order Cancelling Bail Without Change In Circumstances: Supreme Court Mutation Entries Supported By Registered Sale Deeds For Long Period Relevant To Establish Possession: Supreme Court Allegation Of Fraud In Registered Documents Must Be Supported By Foundational Facts; Adverse Inference Drawn If Plaintiff Avoids Witness Box: Supreme Court Commercial Courts Must Assign Reasons For Not Passing Conditional Orders In Summary Judgment Applications: Calcutta High Court Friendly Loan Without Commercial Consideration Not A 'Legally Enforceable Debt' Under Section 138 NI Act: Jharkhand High Court Commercial Courts Act: ₹3 Lakh ‘Specified Value’ Amendment Is Self-Operative; No Separate Govt Notification Required: Andhra Pradesh HC Full Bench Drug Inspector’s Prosecution Voids If Specific Area Of Jurisdiction Is Not Notified In Official Gazette: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Photostat Copies Of Sale Deeds Not Admissible As Additional Evidence To Fill Gaps In Trial Stage: Punjab & Haryana HC

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