Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – In first category of cases, the acquisition proceedings were challenged under the 1894 Act, much prior to the 2013 Act came into force – Amendment applications were filed for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – However, the High Court without deciding the writ petitions on merits, allowed the same – In the second category of cases, the only relief sought was u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – High Court allowed the said writ petitions and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – On appeal, held: In the first category of cases, impugned judgments passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act are set aside – However, the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide the main writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except the applicability of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – In the second category of cases, impugned judgments passed by the High Court are set aside – There shall not be deemed lapse of acquisition in those cases – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.