Land Acquisition Act


[/color][/font]                                        [color=darkred]         JT 2007 (6) SC 25;
                                 2007 (3) CTC 574
[align=justify]                          [color=navy] Ravi Khullar & Others Versus Union of India & Others[/color][/align]

[font=verdana][color=#000066]LAND ACQUISITION ACT[/color], 1894 ΓÇô Section 4 ΓÇô Allotment of alternative land ΓÇô Rehabilitation [/font]

[font=verdana][color=#000066]LAND ACQUISITION ACT[/color], 1894 ΓÇô Section 4, 11A ΓÇô Limitation Act ΓÇô Section 12 - The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on December 26, 1968 i.e. before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1984. Thus the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A applied and the award was required to be made within a period of two years from such commencement. So calculated the award ought to have been made on or before the 23rd September, 1986 when the period of 2 years from the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1984 expired[/font]

[font=verdana][color=#000066]LAND ACQUISITION ACT[/color], 1894 ΓÇô Section 4 ΓÇô Public purpose - Change of purpose [/font]




[font=tahoma]                                            [color=darkred]2007 (3) CTC 209[/color] [/font]

[font=tahoma]                                [color=navy]Mohan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others[/color][/font]


[font=tahoma][color=#000066]LAND ACQUISITION ACT[/color], 1894 - Section 6 & 11A ΓÇô Quash the Award - In view of Section 11A an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory - Section 11A what has to be seen is the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration.[/font]


In Karnataka Rare Earth and another Vs. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology and another reported in 2004 (2) SCC 783 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under :-

ΓÇ£10. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. this Court dealt with the effect on the rights of the parties who have acted bona fide, protected by interim orders of the court and incurred rights and obligations while the interim orders stood vacated or reversed at the end. The Court referred to the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and held that the doctrine was not confined in its application only to such acts of the court which were erroneous; the doctrine is applicable to all such acts as to which it can be held that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law. It is the principle of restitution which is attracted. When on account of an act of the party, persuading the court to pass an order, which at the end is held as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the court and the act of such party,then the successful party finally held entitled to a relief, assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated in the same manner in which the parties would have been if the interim order of the court would not have been passed. The successful party can demand: (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost.ΓÇ¥


Can the unused land be taken back. Please give me decisions on the same



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Search Forum:


  LAWyersclubindia Menu