"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Telangana High Court Directs Authorities to Follow New Land Acquisition Act, Calls Previous Actions Void and Lapsed

05 September 2024 5:48 AM

By: Admin


Telangana High Court Bench comprising C.J. Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar delivered a crucial judgment today in Writ Appeal No.1614 of 2017 involving land acquisition procedures. The case was brought forward by Madanlal Vijay Kumar, the appellant, against the State of Telangana, the respondents.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, delivering the verdict, observed that the "entire proceedings starting from the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, which culminated in the award dated 05.02.2015, are void and have lapsed." This comes as a significant ruling affecting how land acquisition would be dealt with moving forward.

The case revolves around the appellant's claim that the land acquisition process was not carried out following the correct procedures, specifically the guidelines established under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, known as Act 30 of 2013. The appellant also argued that the respondent authorities did not pass the award within the two-year window from the initial notification, making the award unsustainable.

Responding to these claims, the court noted that the authorities had failed to conduct "fresh assessment as per Section 4 to 8 of Act 30 of 2013" and further mentioned that "no revision of market rate was undertaken as envisaged under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013." In a direct quote, the court highlighted that "provisions of Sections 11 to 15, 19 and 20 of the Act 30 of 2013 were not followed."

This judgment is a significant milestone for those fighting for a fair and transparent land acquisition process. Authorities have been directed to revisit and revise the land acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law. As a consequence, the authorities have to strictly follow the guidelines laid down under the Act 30 of 2013 for any ongoing or future land acquisitions.

Legal experts suggest that this ruling is likely to set a precedent and act as a cautionary tale for authorities to meticulously follow the legal framework to avoid future complications.

Date of Decision: 20 October 2023

Madanlal Vijay Kumar VS State of Telangana

Similar News