In Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., rejecting the application of Maruti Udyog Ltd. to be impleaded into the matter as it was a necessary party, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that The acquisition may either be for a 'public purpose' as defined under Section 3(f) or for a company under Part-VII of the Act. If the acquisition is for a public purpose (as the present case), the land vests in the State after the collector makes an award and the possession is taken.
"Till the award is made, no person other than State comes into the picture. Once the land vests in the State, the acquisition is complete. Any transferee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition," the bench said.
It said that the state may transfer the land by public auction or by allotment at any price and the person whose land is acquired has no concern at all.
"The mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation."
"Till the award is made, no person other than State comes into the picture. Once the land vests in the State, the acquisition is complete. Any transferee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition," the bench said.
It said that the state may transfer the land by public auction or by allotment at any price and the person whose land is acquired has no concern at all.
"The mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation."
Comments
Post a Comment