Legal Reference Library

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 refere...

High Court of Bombay Ramesh Narayan Patil and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others Land Acquisition Deposit of compensation amount in government treasury is not equivalent to compensation paid to landowners/persons interested Instant Petition by Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of owner of land situated at Talavali village, Taluka and District Thane within municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation are seeking declaration to effect that, acquisition proceedings in respect of said land, resulting in award dated 31st August, 1984 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel for Corporation, land owner having refused to accept amount of compensation, benefit of Section 24 of Act of 2013 will not be available to Petitioners. Issue involved is whether offer by Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation amount to land...

The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., has observed that persons whose property is expropriated by the state need to be paid immediately so as to enable them to rehabilitate. This observation was made by a Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman while dismissing an appeal by the Delhi Development Corporation seeking a revisit to the dictum laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. HM Solanki. In Pune Municipal Corporation case, the Supreme Court had held that acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the 2013 law entitling the landowners to higher compensation, if compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act has not been paid to the land owner or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury. Read the said judgment and Live Law report here. Refusing to revisit the said judgment, the court observed: “It is important to note that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to person...

The Supreme Court today quashed the acquisition of 1000 acres of land in Singur by West Bengal’s Left Front government in 2006 for Tata’s Nano project concluding that it was “illegal” and proceeded ahead in “violation of law”. Civil rights organizations, several of them backed by present chief minister Mamata Banerjee, had moved the apex court challenging the acquisition. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the quashing of Singur Land Acquisition Act brought in by the Mamata government by the Calcutta high court. Mamata government also became a petitioner later challenging quashing of the Act. A bench of justice V Gopala Gowda and justice Arun Mishra while pronouncing the judgment directed that the land be given back to farmers in 12 weeks. Though the Judges agreed on conclusion, differed on the question whether the land acquisition was  for public purpose or not . Justice Gowda, held that  the acquisition of land by taking it away from the farmers cultivati...

Supreme Court in UDDAR GAGAN PROPERIES LTD. VS. SANT SINGH has made some pertinent observations about Land acquisition by the State and private builder benefitting in the process. The Bench comprising of Justices Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel observed that land acquired for housing purpose must revert back to owner, and not to anyone else directly or indirectly. The land was proposed to be acquired for residential/commercial sector by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The High Court had held that the High Court that there was an abuse of power in releasing the land in favour of the builder. On Appeal, the Apex Court made the following observations: There could be no objection to acquisition of land for a compelling public purpose nor to regulated development of colonies, but entertaining an application for releasing of land in favour of the builder who comes into picture after acquisition notification and release of land to such builder tantamount to acquisition for a priva...

Full Bench of Bombay High Court has held that if the possession is taken before the Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act is published and/or before the award is passed, the land­ owner would been titled for interest as per Section 34 necessarily from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with Section 17 of the said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of Section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of possession. Full Bench comprising of Justices B.P. Dharmadhikari, R.K.Deshpande and P.N Deshmukh answering the reference made to it, also summarised the position of law in this regard. The Bench observed as follows. If the possession of the land under acquisition is taken under Section 16 of the said Act i.e. after an award is made by the Collector under Section 11 therein,the interest would be payable under Section 34 from the date of passing of the award The interest a...

Section 24 (2) of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : Conditions to be satisfied In an important judgment, a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. has examined the applicability of Section 24 (2) of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’) and examined the conditions required to be met by land owners for the acquisition proceedings to lapse. It has been observed: 6. It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the subject acquisition shall be deemed to have been lapsed because the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation has been paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation has been...