In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a landmark decision was made in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul vs The Land Acquisition Officer. This judgement addresses key issues related to land acquisition dispute resolution. The ramifications of this decision are likely to impact numerous cases in the future, setting a standard for clarity in such legal matters.
Arguments
- Madishetti Bala Ramul vs The Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 455 was followed.
- The judgment in Madishetti Bala Ramul vs The Land Acquisition Officer applies only to the Land Acquisition Act.
- The judgment cannot be made applicable to the National Highways Act because of the different scheme under Section 3G (5).
- Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act contains a scheme entirely different from the Land Acquisition Act.
- Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, representing the respondents, did not seriously contest this position.
- M/s Gaurav Agrawal and Neeraj Kumar Jain mention that a review petition was filed but it was limited to only two types of land
- Mr. Rohatgi did not raise the argument before the court that he presented in the review petition
- The point argued by Mr. Rohatgi was not included in the review petition
Also Read: Land-Grabbing Conspiracy Case: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment
Analysis
- Arguments based on the review petition were not considered further as a Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgement dated 03.02.2016.
- Under the Land Acquisition Act, an award made by the Land Acquisition Officer is considered an offer on behalf of the government and cannot be challenged by the government as per Section 25 of the Act.
- The National Highways Act discloses that the amount determined by the competent authority under the Act can be challenged and determined by an Arbitrator if not acceptable by either party, as per Section 3G(5).
- Despite considerable delay, the condonation of the matter by the Court was noted.
- The impugned judgments in the mentioned matters were deemed incorrect and set aside.
Also Read: Limitation Period Clarification: B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta & Associates
Decision
- Cases are remanded to be decided under the Section 37 jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- The appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms.
- A large number of cases are dependent on this judgment.
- The Learned Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is requested to constitute an appropriate bench to hear these matters at the earliest.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: Determination of ‘Seat’ of Arbitration Proceedings
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH
Case Number: C.A. No.-007064-007064 / 2019
