Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of India
|
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,......... Act, 2013 |
| Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation |
Head Note |
Parties Name |
Reference/Citation |
|
Section 15(2)
|
Objections to the proposed acquisition land–
We find that the Collector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants
as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and nor submitted any report
as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act to the Government so as to
enable the Government to take appropriate decision. In other words, we find
that there is non-compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector.
In our view, it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with
the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the
acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the
Act. We hereby direct the respondent No.2 herein (Collector, Winter Field,
Shimla-3 HP) to decide the objections filed by the appellants on 05.01.2016
keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass
appropriate orders. .....Shiv Singh =VS= State of Himachal Pradesh,
(Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 26] ....View Full Judgment
|
Shiv Singh =VS= State of Himachal Pradesh |
5 LM (SC) 26 |
|
Section 24(2)
|
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) r/w
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 31, 34
Compensation–– The Impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of the land in
question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground
that the compensation has not been paid to the landowners. However, it is
required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the possession of the
land in question has already been taken. As observed hereinabove on the
ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowner relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. (supra), the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has
declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has
lapsed. ––The case of Indore Development Authority (supra),
specifically overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside. .....Delhi Development Authority =VS= Bhagwat Singh,
(Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 6] ....View Full Judgment
|
Delhi Development Authority =VS= Bhagwat Singh |
13 LM (SC) 6 |