MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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