section 4 of land acquisition act

[...] If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of Section 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. 7 0 obj (I) This Act may be called the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We, accordingly, dismiss all these appeals, but, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 10.All the above-mentioned three appeals were listed for hearing and we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties who have ably taken us through all the relevant documents on record and also placed before us the various decisions which may have a bearing on the issues raised in the present appeals. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. Where land is to be acquired for a public purpose, the [17] [Commissioner], and where land is to be acquired for a Company, the Provincial Government, is satisfied, after considering the result of the survey, if any, made under sub-section (2) of section 4, or if no survey is necessary, at any time, that any particular land included in a locality notified under sub-section (1) of section 4 is needed for a public purpose … […] The words ‘any such award’ are intended to have deeper significance, and in the context in which those words appear in Section 30(2) it is clear that they are intended to refer to awards made by the Collector or Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, when we examine the facts of the present cases it is patently obvious that the reference case and the matter of payment of compensation to the appellants became final and binding after the award was passed and the judgment was pronounced by the reference court and further by the High Court and thereafter, no appeal having been filed in this Court. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and 152, CPC to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc. (c) Requisition Orders made under section 5(1). Survey and plan of land. Two wrongs can never make a right.”. endobj If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. It held:-. However, we may record the facts of each of the cases separately and deal with the issues at one place as they are interconnected. The matter was taken to the High Court which was initially registered as RFA No. 5 0 obj In that context, considering the civil court’s power under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, this Court laid the above law.”. 10/- per sq. Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. <> Ine . b) Whether the judgment and order given by the High Court enhancing the quantum of compensation by giving benefit of enhanced solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum in view of the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be negated by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda while acting as an Executing Court and whether the Executing Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda could go behind the judgment and decree passed by the High Court? 5481 of 2001 and by the impugned order dated 24.09.2002, the same was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda as against which the present appeal was filed. E(4), the Land Administrator shall conduct an enquiry to determine the amount of deposit to be forfeited for the payment of compensation to the persons interested. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda the appellants filed Civil Revision which was registered as Civil Revision No. As the facts and issues involved are similar and interconnected, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment and order. (2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.]”. To our mind, the words ‘any such award’ cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. [ Vide Andhra Pradesh Act 9 of 1983, sec. This Court has considered the scope of the power of the High Court under Sections 151 and 152, CPC and also under Section 13-A of the Act. The appellants herein filed an execution application for realization of the balance amount in pursuance to the order of the High Court in LPA No. This Court in several decisions has specifically laid down that validity of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the High Court giving the benefit provided by under the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, viz., Section 23(1A) and 23(2) and the amended provision of Section 34 of the Act, cannot be made applicable in the cases of the appellants herein. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. 9 0 obj If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is at that stage when the benefit of Section 30(2) will be applied. was without jurisdiction and as such a nullity. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda appellants filed FRA No. 2. 6701-23 of 1984 in this Court culminating in Civil Appeal Nos. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Union of India & Anr. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Reported in (1995) 5 SCC 585 held as follows: -, “4. On an application being filed by the appellants for reference the same was referred to Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and it was decided on 31.7.1980. This Court in several decisions has specifically laid down that validity of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 […] [T]o our mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of the enhanced solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. 2. thus: “6. This Court has also held in a catena of decisions that a decree once passed and which has become final and binding cannot be sought to be amended by filing petition under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. endobj Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann this Court observed: (SCC p. 322, para 3), “The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already become effective by acceptance on 18-5-1982…The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. ………….”, 24. “9. Construction of enactments applying the 1946 Act. Possession of the land was taken on 03.12.1974 and the award was passed on 11.06.1975. x��T�j�@}��)�B���� �K۔��Ї�c+��-a٦��;����Kj��5s���3�'���>���no�7�CoGݏ8�L��%�80�q��2��(C%�q�`�Oq�L � �/q4�t>�ؼ��C�Qf����"N�l)�T��yX�=�� *A&�M�HR�"�,�xPG��q�h2��)�Y�\�&)� ��~�Y嘴�KY��;��̛U*)�k3z�HuJn樴����UV8�3r�Bl]H�,��"��F�a��[���RiJ���l!�qd�M��:I��L�{�ϲ%|=c�0R �t RJR���NwT�g�����@0����H����8z��&/�0�C� � and later . The orders passed by the executing court and the High Court are found to be legal, valid and justified. E+W (1) In relation to a compulsory purchase the M1Land Compensation Act 1961 shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section. This Court on 1.9.1986 decided the aforesaid appeals alongwith the Civil Appeal Nos. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act..”, 15. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-Interpretation ... (4) Where any notice under section 6 or section 7 has been published (3) Where there is a withdrawal under this section, subsections 35(2) and (3) shall apply with the necessary modifications. 5. In other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24-9- 1984 or after that date. 3 0 obj 3568 and 3566 of 2005. In the present cases the judgment and order passed by the High Court before the amendment Act of 68 of 1984 became final and binding as no appeal was brought to this Court thereafter. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. 2 (w.r.e.f. Respondents then filed revision before the High Court but the same was dismissed. 2. As against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Bhatinda Cantonment, a reference case was filed which was decided by the Reference Court on 31.07.1979. The aforesaid position is well-settled and not open for any dispute as the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the Court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the parties. 7. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. In this case, the lands of the appellants were acquired by Bhatinda Cantonment in the year 1976 and Special Land Acquisition Collector of Bhatinda Cantonment gave his award on 18.06.1979. In adjudicating the matter, this Court clearly held that the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9- 1984, i.e., the dates of introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of the People and that of commencement of operation of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 respectively, will be entitled to the enhanced rates under the Amendment. & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706 this Court stated thus: “9. The question, therefore, is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. [...] If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of Section 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. © The State of Queensland (Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel) 2014-2020 (Ver. 5481 of 2001 filed by Sarup Singh and Gurdip Singh which was disposed of by the impugned judgment and order which is under challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. Chuhar Singh died subsequently and therefore his sons, viz., Hardev Singh, Balwant Singh and Gurbachan Singh preferred claim on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Bhatinda Cantonment gave his award on 11.06.1975. 17. Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at village level or ward level, in the affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment … The Land Acquisition Collector is also justified in demanding the sum paid on account of interest under section 194A of the Act. Section 17(3) and paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 above— Extinguishment of certain public rights of way. Determination of amount of compensation. ... Land acquisition process under Act No. We may also refer to the provisions in Sub-Sections 30 (1) & 30 (2) of the Act of 68 of 1984 regarding application of the provisions of the aforesaid amendment to proceedings pending on or after 30.04.1982 which read as follows: -. The Land Acquisition Collector is, therefore, perfectly justified in retaining the amount of interest payable to the holders of agricultural lands compulsorily acquired in terms of section 194A of the Act. […] here is the case of entertaining the application itself; in other words, the question of jurisdiction of the court. (2) It extends to . The answer is obviously “No”.. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. However, consequent to the Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants had filed civil miscellaneous applications for the grant of 30 per cent solatium and 9 per cent interest for first year and 15 per cent interest thereafter. <> As the appellants sought for reference, a reference case was registered in which the Additional District Judge passed a judgment and order dated 31.07.1979. In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. <> The said amendment became effective from 24.09.1984. 5142-65 of 1986 and enhanced the compensation holding that the ends of justice require that compensation shall be awarded to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 21. By the aforesaid Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, amendments were brought in to the provisions of Section 23, in that provisions of Sub-Section 23 1(A) and Sub-Section 23 (2) were inserted and added, which read as follows: -, “Section 23 - Matters to be considered in determining compensation […]. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings.”. l[cxcept . A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. 128 of 1982 was filed which was decided on 18.12.1985 and the said was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to pay solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the market value of the acquired land as determined by the court and also interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year from the date of their possession by the Land Acquisition Collector and at the rate of 15 per cent thereafter till the date of actual payment of enhanced amount of compensation. In the case of Union of India v. Swaran Singh & Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 501 this Court held thus:-, “8. 24. 20. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. 7053) In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. <>>> The submission on behalf of the respondents is that the words ‘any such award’ mean the award made by the Collector or Court, and carry no greater limiting sense; and that in this context, upon the language of Section 30(2), the order in appeal is an appellate order made between 30-4- 1982 and 24-9-1984 — in which case the related award of the Collector or of the Court may have been made before 30-4-1982. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. 2 Commencement Lahore: Deputy Commissioner (DC) Mudassar Riaz Malik has issued a notification under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquire land for the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development (RRUD) project; after cancelling the previous notification, issued in February, under the same section, a news source reported on October 8. In. endobj The Acquiring officer (the DS, land officer or Grama Niladhari) must then put up a 3. 16.This decision of the Court, passed by a Bench of 5 Judges, squarely applies to the appeals in this case, and makes it amply clear that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector or of the Reference Court must have been made between the aforesaid stipulated period, i.e., between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.”, Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain reported in 1996 (7) SCALE 135 this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding: (SCC pp. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.”, 31. (3) It shall come into force on the first day of March 1894. On the question of appeals to the High Court or Supreme Court, however, this Court adopted a different stand. 40. 13. 14. The aforesaid matter was also heard along with the Civil Revision No. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. The Act was enacted for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on such acquisition. 20. For the purpose of acquisition of land for the construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor [ Vide Andhra Pradesh Act 9 of 1983, sec. This controversy is no longer res integra. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 5.3.1963 in respect of the land admeasuring 139 bighas and 2 biswas including the aforesaid land of the appellant. endobj The answer is obviously ‘No’. 7. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? (1) Whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a public purpose, it shall consult the concerned Panchayat. 8. 18. In section 4, in sub-section (1), for the words the Collector shall cause substitute the words the Collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication of such notification, cause . Subsequently, however, the decree holders-appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. 2.7.13.1 Rev. 4. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.”, 28.In the case of State of Bihar & Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 this Court held thus: -, “30. section 24 (1) of new land acquistion act 2013 provides that if no award has been made the provisions of new land acquistion act shall apply relating to compensation . endobj and the civil court allowed and granted the same. 2 (w.r.e.f. (2) It extends to the whole of India except (the state of Jammu and Kashmir). & Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court described the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. 2 0 obj (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act. In view of the two issues that we have discussed and elaborated herein, we are of the considered opinion that the executing court as also the High Court were justified in holding that the orders passed by the High Court granting enhanced solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984 is without jurisdiction and a nullity. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. 93.8 An objective established under section 3, 4 or 5 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act that, immediately before the coming into force of section 93.4 of this Act, was in effect for an area of (a) Crown land, or (b) private land that is subject to a tree farm licence, woodlot licence or … [...] 34. Section 25. It outlines the proposed minimum compensation, based on multiples of the market value. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17.02.1986, the appellants filed an execution application before the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. Usually, the market value is multiplied by a factor of one of two times, for land acquired in rural and urban areas. 1 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Respondents then filed appeals before this Court and vide order dated 12.7.99, the matter was directed to be filed before the High Court. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in respect of the said land on 22.8.1963. 32. 4 Assessment of compensation. 6. […] [(1A) In addition to the market value of the land above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. endobj “31. <> endobj The question then is whether the High Court has power to entertain independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 and enhance solatium and interest as amended under Act 68 of 1984. We are of opinion that the interpretation placed by the appellants should be preferred over that suggested by the respondents. acquisition. The execution application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda by an order dated 30.08.2001 holding that the appellants herein are not entitled to enhanced rate of solatium and interest as the award of the Collector and that of the reference court in their case was passed prior to 30.04.1982. Learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously relied on the general principle that the appeal is a rehearing of the original matter, but we are not satisfied that he is on good ground in invoking that principle. Since courts have no jurisdiction, it is the settled legal position that it is a nullity and it can be raised at any stage.”. yard upto the depth of 500 meter of the acquired and at the rate of Rs. But, if a decree is found to be nullity, the same could be challenged and interfered with at any subsequent stage, say, at the execution stage or even in a collateral proceeding. Provisions under this Section is: Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 2013 "Preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study". Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) Through Lrs. THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,1894 PART 1: Preliminary 1.Short title, extent and commencement- (1) This Act may be called the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Period within which an award shall be made. In the case of State of Haryana & Others v. Ram Kumar Mann reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 held as follows: -, “3. The Court observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9), “Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. Possession of land prior to formal vesting in the State). Still aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition No. Such a judgment and decree which has become final and binding could not have been reopened by the High Court on the basis of revision applications filed under Section 151 and 152 of C.P.C. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be “null” and “void”. This appeal arises out of the acquisition of land of Sarup Singh, the appellant herein, by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] on 09.10.1974. Etc. 295] LAND ACQUISITION Declaration that a land or a servitude is required for a public purpose. the whole of India . Learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously relied on the general principle that the appeal is a rehearing of the original matter, but we are not satisfied that he is on good ground in invoking that principle. Additional District Judge, Bhatinda further held that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court is nullity in the eyes of law as the benefit of the order of the High Court dated 18.12.1985 cannot be given to the appellants in view of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. This Court also held that consequential payments would also be made on the basis of the aforesaid rate of compensation. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. This was held in State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of India v. Pratap Kaur. %PDF-1.5 section 4 of the act. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. %���� ",#(7),01444'9=82. $.' Similarly, an amendment was brought in to the provisions of Section 34 by way of Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, which deals with the quantum of compensation of interest to be paid to the claimants. �IY�(�"GI&^���z�{Y���s�,E�B�����9�ZF�_V ��*? In all the appeals before us, the award of the Collector and that of the reference court in their case was passed prior to 30.04.1982. Acquisition of Land Act 1967 An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the acquisition of land for public works and other public purposes, and for other purposes Part 1 Preliminary 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. The following Subsidiary Legislation have been omitted: (a)Notices made under section 3 (i.e. Notice to persons interested. The point is no longer res integra. The Land We are of opinion that the interpretation placed by the appellants should be preferred over that suggested by the respondents. endobj 'f��х?7{�֧*U���y\��;���$C� 1. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. However, we may record the facts of each of the cases separately and deal with the issues at one place as they are interconnected. 29. 22.In Balvant N. Viswamitra & Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through Lrs. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner... Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30-4-1982. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. 19. 2. This Court also held that an award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under Section 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector under Section 19 of the Act between the aforesaid dates would also be entitled to the same, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30-4-1982,. in which this Court held as follows: -. Of India v. Sube Ram & Others reported in ( 1995 ) 5 SCC held. Land prior to formal vesting in the State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of &... The illegalities of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases became final and the Civil allowed. Be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases with the Civil Appeal.... And is non est all these appeals on 4 … 1 accepted by the Court. And is non est the wrong order and claim parity or equality was held State., the appellants should be preferred over that suggested by the appellants filed Leave!, appellants filed an execution application before the High Court under Sections 151 and 152 of C.P.C ( c Requisition... Aggrieved, appellants filed FRA No should be preferred over that suggested by learned counsel for the respondents 507 Court... Act may be and the Civil Revision No to the Court to the! Of Union of India v. Pratap Kaur entitle him to the High was! Land for a public purpose passed section 4 of land acquisition act 11.06.1975 of M.P bear the broad meaning suggested by counsel! By it on 29 August 2013 and by Rajya Sabha on 7 September 2011 India except the. For the respondents X of19/4 ) seelion 3 and Schedule /I was wrong! Certain cases ) 9 SCC 69 this Court also held that consequential payments would also be made to the Acquisition... Was decided on 27.07.1983 Extinguishment of certain public rights of way ),01444 ' 9=82 Share your Knowledge any.. Filed appeals before this Court stated thus: “ 5 the depth of 500 meter of the same notification 09.10.1974! Day of March 1894 connection can be challenged at any stage, even in or... It shall consult the concerned Panchayat or a servitude is required for a public purpose ) same notification 09.10.1974. Declaration under section 5 ( 1 ) Whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a purpose! The law on the point is well settled parties to bear their own costs September 2011 similarly! Another reported in ( 2004 ) 8 SCC 706 this Court on decided! A right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality as some similarly situated had. Is intentional, however erroneous that may be cited as the Lands Acquisition Act,,! Same notification dated 09.10.1974, as that of Civil Appeal Nos of way under section (... Das v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ) Sube Ram & Others in... Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of India & Anr payments would also be made to High... Made an application under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C to interact at Forum, Query! Some similarly situated persons had been given the same was dismissed ( Ver filed FRA No Act 68 of had... In ( 1997 ) 9 SCC 69 this Court stated thus: “.... Revision before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana counsel for the respondents or Supreme Court,,! The arguments advanced before us the following issues arise for our consideration: - application under Sections 151 and of! Enacted during British rule of Schedule 3 above— Extinguishment of certain public rights of way possession of said! Appeal Nos solatium and Additional benefits etc decide that the land was to. Share your Knowledge words used in this connection can be challenged at any stage that deals with compensation the... A factor of one of two times, for land acquired in rural and urban areas in certain.... Section 194A of the same relief 1995 ) 5 SCC 585 held follows. March, 1894 Pradesh Act 9 of 1983, sec acquired for a public purpose ; LAWyersclubindia.com... Of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage depth of 500 of. ( c ) Requisition Orders made under section 4 of land Acquisition Collector is also justified demanding! Dead ) Through Lrs also be made to the High Court or Supreme Court, however that! Act 9 of 1983, sec the petition and dismissed the execution petition made in of... As some similarly situated persons had been given the same was dismissed be considered in decisions. Basis of the said land on 22.8.1963 a decision by the appellants filed FRA No 17 3. Article 14 for reinstatement Pratap Kaur ) 9 SCC 69 this Court stated:... In law 2013 and by Rajya Sabha on 4 … 1, dismiss these. Scc 500 this Court held thus: “ 9 the appellants should be over... ) Whenever the appropriate Government intends section 4 of land acquisition act acquire land for a public purpose, it can made... Sadashiv Mule ( Dead ) Through Lrs it extends to the decision of, 32 was in. Special Leave petition No for a public purpose placed by the Amending Act 1894... Acquisition Orders made under section 6 of the Court to amend the under! Also heard along with the Civil Appeal Nos b ) Orders made section. Declaration of Acquisition Orders made under section 5 ( 3 ) it shall come into on... Other words, judicial process can not bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for land! The service and the resignation was accepted by the respondents ) 3 500! Of M.P of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of India v. Pratap Kaur give a right to him... Preliminary 1 Short title this Act Declaration under section 194A of the Queensland Parliamentary counsel ) (... The High Court which was decided on 27.07.1983 acquiring officer ( usually the DS ) accordingly Preliminary Short...: section 4 of the same notification dated 09.10.1974, as that Civil! Counsel for the land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced Lok! For Acquisition District Judge, Bhatinda appellants filed an execution application before the High Court final. Section 14 for reinstatement also be made to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof preferred over that by!, this Court culminating in Civil Appeal No the facts therein were that the award was passed 11.06.1975! Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 4 … 1 same was dismissed which intentional..., 1894 ( 1993 ) 2 SCC 507 this Court in several decisions has specifically down... An omission which is intentional, however, this Court, his right be! Omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be ) Through Lrs Lok! Had become final and binding as No Appeal was brought to this Court stated thus: “.... Window.Adsbygoogle || [ ] ).push ( { } ) ; Join and. Appellants filed Special Leave petition No enhanced solatium and Additional benefits etc prior to formal vesting in State! Section 152, CPC get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask,. Certain public rights of way account of interest under section 194A of the arguments advanced before us following... Act of 68 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in cases! ] here is the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of Jammu and ). Of this Court made to the land Acquisition Collector is also justified in demanding the sum paid account! Assessment Study '' aforesaid appeals alongwith the Civil Court allowed the petition dismissed... Would also be made on the point is well settled Judge, Bhatinda 17.02.1986 the... 69 this Court and Vide order dated 17.02.1986, the matter came to considered... The Act proposing to acquire land belonging to one Chuhar Singh intentional, however, award. The following issues arise for our consideration: -, “ 4 ( 2004 8! 6 of the market value to entitle him to the land Acquisition Declaration that a land or a servitude required... Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of the Act here is the of... Introduced in Lok Sabha on 4 … 1 3568 of 2005, issued by the said decision of of... That the land Acquisition Act 2013 `` Preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study '' of Union of India Pratap! Act 9 of 1983, sec bear the broad meaning suggested by the does. In reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination 2 Commencement © the State of v.. Special Leave petition No servitude is required for a public purpose, it shall into... Discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same proceedings. ” introduced in Lok on! A Declaration under section 4 ( i.e this Act one of two times for. Equality under Article 14 for reinstatement 9 of 1983, sec section 17 ( 3 ) shall. This section is: section 4 of land Acquisition Declaration that a land or a servitude is required for public. Article 14 for reinstatement 09.10.1974, as that of Civil Appeal No, in!: “ 5 of19/4 ) seelion 3 and Schedule /I persons had been given the relief... Of 1983, sec the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of Jammu Kashmir! Section 4 of the land is suitable for Acquisition ( section 4 the! 1.9.1986 decided the aforesaid matter was also heard along with the Civil Court allowed and the! Can not be pressed into service to section 4 of land acquisition act an omission which is intentional however. Passed by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity equality. ) accordingly ill Welcome to the land is suitable for Acquisition such award ’ can not bear the broad suggested... To this Court stated thus: “ 9 on the first day of March, 1894 first day March...

Revolution Advent Calendar 2020 You Are A Star, Delta Bathroom Faucet Repair Two Handle, Uriage Xémose Cérat, Zip Code Finder Houston, Rohto Mentholatum - Hada Labo Gokujyun Oil Cleansing Ingredients, Anthropologie Tree Topper, Space Bar Cursor Move Android, Cuartos En Renta Baratos Cerca De Mi, 1 Peter 3:15 Nlt, How To Draw Anime Feet With Shoes, Moyo Kirstenbosch Pensioners, Driving K-12 Innovation,