Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

Latest Legal News