Explore the nuanced legal analysis of a significant case revolving around the Land Acquisition Act. The court’s in-depth examination of provisions and precedents offer valuable insights into property rights and acquisition proceedings. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of the legal system in action.
Facts
- The original land owner filed a Writ Petition challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 14.05.1987.
- The Writ Petition filed by the original land owner was dismissed on 03.03.2005.
- A review application was filed by the original land owner on the ground that the objections filed under Section 5A were not considered.
- The High Court found that the original land owner did not provide the date or details of filing the objections, and the objections were not attached with the writ petition.
- The purchaser bought the property on 25.11.2011.
- The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed due to provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act.
- The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh case noted the payment deposited by the appellant.
- The payment made by the appellant was a determining factor in the court’s decision.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Analysis
- In the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., the issue of PRE_RELIED was discussed.
- PRE_RELIED refers to a provision that has been interpreted in the case.
- The interpretation of PRE_RELIED was crucial in understanding the legal aspects of the case.
- The judgment sheds light on the significance of PRE_RELIED in the context of the dispute between the parties.
- Appellant stated that due to ongoing interim orders in other writ petitions related to the same land acquisition, they could not take possession of the land even after the dismissal of the original land owner’s writ petition.
- Compensation was deposited by the appellant through cheques before the High Court as the deposit was not accepted by the Additional District Judge due to court being closed for winter vacations.
- The High Court accepted the deposited cheques on behalf of the Additional District Judge and ordered it to be treated as tendered on 30.12.2013.
- The High Court declared the order of the High Court as unsustainable in law for two main reasons: 1) The respondent being a subsequent purchaser after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act, and 2) The finding that compensation was not offered to the land owners and the deposit in the Court cannot be considered as payment of compensation is not valid as per previous judgments.
- The High Court set aside its previous order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent, allowing the appeal.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Search and Seizure Authorization
Case Title: DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Vs. PAWAN KUMAR (2022 INSC 526)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003646-003646 / 2022
