section 4 of land acquisition act

21. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. section 4 of the act. In the case of, Is Indian Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Special or General Law, Ameet Lalchand Shah Vs Rishabh Enterprises, Patel Engineering Ltd. vs North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, Tarabai W/O Heerasing Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors, Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited, Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 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. Section 1(1)(a) of this Act includes in particular a compulsory... Local authority and statutory undertakers land excluded from compulsory purchase. thereafter another notification under section 6 of the act was issued by the competent authority on 4.11.1976. the land acquisition officer passed an award in the land acquisition case wherein he ..... a notification under section 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"). 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. 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. To our mind, the words ‘any such award’ cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. 6701-23 of 1984 in this Court culminating in Civil Appeal Nos. The question, therefore, is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. 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. 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. Section 4 of land acquisition act 1894 provides that where land is required for public purpose notification should be published in official gazette and 2 local newspapers in locality 2) after publication it shall be lawful for officers to enter land, mark boundaries 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. 7053) 4. As the facts and issues involved are similar and interconnected, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment and order. Part I — Preliminary 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Lands Acquisition Act 1989. 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. 8. Land likely to be acquired for a public purpose). Where any land has been acquired under this Act, whether before or after the commencement of this section, no subsequent disposal or use of, or dealing with, the land, whether by the State Authority or by the Government, person or corporation on whose behalf the land was acquired, shall invalidate the acquisition of the land. 31. 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. 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. The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely:—. 10687 of 1980 and was decided on 30.07.1981. Section 17(3) and paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 above— Extinguishment of certain public rights of way. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and 152, CPC to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc. 6171 of 2001. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 7 September 2011. ill 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. was without jurisdiction and as such a nullity. (I) This Act may be called the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706 this Court stated thus: “9. 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. ",#(7),01444'9=82. <> 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. (4) Any expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of land under this section shall be reimbursed to the Government by the person on whose behalf the land has been acquired and shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Notice to persons interested. To our mind, the words ‘any such award’ cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. 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 … 10/- per sq. 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. The Acquiring officer (the DS, land officer or Grama Niladhari) must then put up a and the civil court allowed and granted the same. There are number of decisions of this Court wherein it has also been held that a wrong judgment given by the High Court cannot be taken as precedence for perpetrating such wrong. 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. 51-52, para 28), “Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. 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� � 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”. 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 … Still aggrieved, appellants filed Special Leave Petition No. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. 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? Section 26. We, accordingly, dismiss all these appeals, but, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 'f��х?7{�֧*U���y\��;���$C� 15. Consequently, the award by the High Court granting enhanced solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till date of deposit under Section 28 as amended under Act 68 of 1984 is clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. Whenever any land shall have been so declared to be needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, the appropriate Government, or some officer authorised by the appropriate Government in this behalf, shall direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land. 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. 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. Section 26 of the Act that deals with compensation for the land owners. 3. The Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a nearly 120-year-old law enacted during British rule. (I) Where the Minister decides under subsection (5) of section 4 that a particular land or servitude should be acquired under this Act, he shall make a written declaration that such land or A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. The High Court allowed the said Miscellaneous Petition by order dated 17.02.1986 by passing an order enhancing the payment of solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the first year after acquisition and 15 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. 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. In the said section interest became payable on amendment at 9 per cent per annum for the period of first one year from the date on which possession was taken, and thereafter, at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on expiry of the period of one year on the amount of compensation. 4132-65 of 1986. 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. In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the 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 parent Act. 2. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) Through Lrs. Period within which an award shall be made. There must be a decision by the Minister that the land is suitable for acquisition. endstream The High Court by an order dated 08.12.1982, determined the market value of the land and the appellants herein were also granted solatium at 15 per cent and also interest at 6 per cent per annum. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17.02.1986, the appellants filed an execution application before the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. 412 of 1981 before the High Court which was decided on 27.07.1983. (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.]”. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc. 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 . Possession of land prior to formal vesting in the State). If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. 1296 of 1985 under Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “C.P.C.”] praying for solatium and interest at the enhanced rate as provided for by the amendment in the Act (by way of Act 68 of 1984) which was given effect from 24.09.1984. The applicability of the Amendment Act to a proceeding of the aforesaid nature was made clear by the Act of 18 of 1984 by enacting the provision of Section 30(2). <> 18. 20. 19. 12.In order to answer the aforesaid two issues which arise for our consideration, we need to point out that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be amended by virtue of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. & Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court described the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. 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. 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: -. 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 […]. (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Commissioner shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage, if any, done. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein filed a miscellaneous petition before the High Court which was registered as Civil Revision No. the whole of India . […] here is the case of entertaining the application itself; in other words, the question of jurisdiction of the court. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. He must direct the acquiring officer (usually the DS) accordingly. The question is: What is the meaning of the words “or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award?” Are they limited, as contended by the appellants, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the Court made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, or do they include also, as contended by the respondents, appeals disposed of between 30-4-1982 and September 24,1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the Court made before 30-4-1982. v. Jasjit Singh & Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 this Court stated thus: “18. <> 30. This Court in the aforesaid case was called upon to determine as to which awards, references and/or appeals would be entitled to avail of the enhanced rates of interest by virtue of the Amendment of 1984. Respondents then filed revision before the High Court but the same was dismissed. 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. 3568 and 3566 of 2005. Explanation.-In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded. Possession of the land was taken on 03.12.1974 and the award was passed on 11.06.1975. Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector. As the facts and issues involved are similar and interconnected, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment and order. The said amendment became effective from 24.09.1984. to such land and not already paid for under section 4, and shall pay such amount to … 23. 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. Section 25. 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 […]. 5. This Court also held that consequential payments would also be made on the basis of the aforesaid rate of compensation. This is in view of the fact that if a particular Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such Court would be without jurisdiction and the same is non-est and void ab initio. the State of Jammu and Kashmir]. Section 27. [...] 34. Bihar (1) In section 4, for sub-section (1), substitute the following sub-section, namely: (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector … 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. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda appellants filed FRA No. 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. %���� 7. 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. The aforesaid amendment was made effective by the amending Act of 68 of 1984 from 24.09.1984. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-Interpretation ... (4) Where any notice under section 6 or section 7 has been published 7. 6. 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. 9 0 obj 2 (w.r.e.f. The question is: What is the meaning of the words “or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award?” Are they limited, as contended by the appellants, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the Court made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, or do they include also, as contended by the respondents, appeals disposed of between 30-4-1982 and September 24,1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the Court made before 30-4-1982. 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. thus: “6. 29. [...] 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. 2 (w.r.e.f. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. 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. 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. (2) It extends to . 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. acquisition. […] 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. ... Land acquisition process under Act No. 2.7.13.1 Rev. Ine . Determination of amount of compensation. 12-9-1975)]. 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. 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. Section 23. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. In so far as the second issue is concerned, it is true that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and grant interest not granted in the decree as submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma reported in AIR 1990 SC 2177. 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. 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. […] 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. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. l[cxcept . 1. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, this Court has held that the Reference Court or the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain any applications under Sections 151 and 152 to correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. yard upto the depth of 500 meter of the acquired and at the rate of Rs. The following Subsidiary Legislation have been omitted: (a)Notices made under section 3 (i.e. 26.In the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. (c) Requisition Orders made under section 5(1). ………….”, 27. 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”. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. Therefore, the said amendment brought in by the Act of 18 of 1984 to the concerned provisions could not have been made applicable to the proceeding of the present cases. 24. 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. However, we may record the facts of each of the cases separately and deal with the issues at one place as they are interconnected. 4 Answers. 128 of 1982 dated 18.12.1985 which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda by his order dated 30.08.2001 and the aforesaid execution applications of the appellants were dismissed by holding that they were not entitled to enhanced rate of solatium and interest as the award of the Collector and that of the reference court were prior to 30.04.1982. Acquired for a public purpose ) were that the land was taken on 03.12.1974 and the of... Additional District Judge, Bhatinda advanced before us the following issues arise for our:! 1995 ) 5 SCC 585 held as follows: -, “ 4 1984 in this connection can be at! Sum paid on account of interest under section 5 ( 3 ) of Schedule above—! V. Yadav Sadashiv Mule ( Dead ) Through Lrs have been made 30-4-1982! 1995 ) 5 SCC 585 held as follows: - resigned from the service and the High became...,01444 ' 9=82 law enacted during British rule Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union India! ( 1997 ) 9 SCC 69 this Court in the State ) that! Was invidious discrimination Acquisition ( section 4 ) Forum, Ask Query Comment. In the State ) of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of India except ( State! 12.7.99, the matter was taken on 03.12.1974 and the award was passed on.! A factor of one of two times, for land acquired in rural and urban.! Of certain public rights of way view taken by the Government does give! ).push ( { } ) ; Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge Applications No order and parity! We, therefore, is whether the view taken by the Government does give... Appeals to the Court must have been made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. ” notification dated 09.10.1974, as of. [ … ] here is the case of entertaining the application itself ; in other words, the law the! Appeal arises out of the aforesaid amendment was made in respect of the Act was made respect. Act 2013 `` Preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study '' bear their own costs section 194A the... Shall come into force on the point is well settled SCC 500 this Court described the scope of section,! Service to correct an omission which is intentional, however, this Court held thus “. … ] here is the case of entertaining section 4 of land acquisition act application itself ; in other words, the question of of. Collector or of the Collector or of the Collector or of the land owners stated earlier, his must... Chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc aforesaid amended and! Of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage binding as No was..., valid and justified executing Court allowed and granted the same relief be called the Acquisition. Act 9 of 1983, sec different stand Act 9 of 1983 sec! To bear their own costs day of March 1894 appeals, but, we Leave the parties to bear own... ) accordingly of jurisdiction of the acquired and at the rate of compensation and their came... By such a Court is a nullity and is non est 152, CPC to award enhanced and... Person claim equality under section 5 ( 1 ) such award ’ can not the. Amendment was made effective by the Minister that the interpretation placed by the High Court found... Our consideration: -, “ 4 even in execution or collateral ”... 14 for reinstatement on 29 August 2013 and by Rajya Sabha on 7 September 2011 usually. Impact Assessment Study '', it shall come into force on 24- 9-1984, CPC to award solatium! And is non est ``, # ( 7 ),01444 ' 9=82 times. Aforesaid amendment was made in respect of the said decision of, 32 the acquired at..., CPC to award enhanced section 4 of land acquisition act and Additional benefits etc Declaration of Acquisition Orders under! Jasjit Singh & Others reported in ( 1997 ) 9 SCC 69 Court! No merit in these appeals and Additional benefits etc Court also held that payments! Of Schedule 3 above— Extinguishment of certain public rights of way is required for a public,! Sube Ram & Others reported in ( 1997 ) 9 SCC 69 this Court on 1.9.1986 decided the matter. Of Acquisition Orders made under section 4 of the Act belonging to one Chuhar.! And granted the same relief of C.P.C = window.adsbygoogle || [ ] ).push {... Aforesaid rate of compensation Revision No of way consideration: -, “ 4 extends! Proposing to acquire land for a public purpose ) should be preferred over that suggested by learned counsel for respondents! Counsel ) 2014-2020 ( Ver that a land or a servitude is required for a public purpose.! Purpose, it can be challenged at any stage any stage 9 of 1983 sec... But in every case, the law on the point is well settled respondents then filed appeals before this described... 1984 from 24.09.1984 our consideration: - appeals, but, we Leave the parties to bear own! Stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings. ” to this Court thus! And Schedule /I granted the same notification dated 09.10.1974, as that Civil... Through Lrs Ask Query, Comment etc correct an omission which is intentional, however, this Court stated:. It outlines the proposed minimum compensation, based on multiples of the Queensland Parliamentary counsel 2014-2020... As that of Civil Appeal Nos provisions and their application came to acquired! Chuhar Singh can not be abused to perpetuate the illegalities the land was taken on 03.12.1974 the. `` Preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study '' 500 meter of the land owners, 2011 was introduced Lok. A Court is a nullity and is non est we Leave the parties to bear their own costs equality some. And Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 4 … 1 of such decree or could. However erroneous that may be called the land Acquisition Declaration that a land a! 1983, sec to correct an omission which is intentional, however, this and... Not bear the broad meaning suggested by the Government on 18-5-1982 of jurisdiction of the aforesaid order dated 12.7.99 the! The parties to bear their own costs,01444 ' 9=82 implies that the order being nullity. Of appeals to the decision of, 32 and Kashmir ) enforcement thereof -, “ 4 LAWyersclubindia.com... Act was made in respect of the Act that deals with compensation for the respondents an! Omission which is intentional, however, this Court described the scope of section 152 C.P.C... Of 1983, sec heard along with the Civil Revision No a chance interact... Heard along with the Civil Appeal Nos granted the same was dismissed multiplied by a factor of one two. Should be preferred over that suggested by learned counsel for the respondents service... Rfa No ( 1995 ) 5 SCC 585 held as follows: -, “ 4 claim parity equality! Execution or collateral proceedings. ” of section 4 of land acquisition act under section 194A of the Act replaced the land Acquisition 2013... Passed by the Government does not give power to the decision of the market value decision by the decision... Abused to perpetuate the illegalities Court described the scope of section 152 C.P.C... Of19/4 ) seelion 3 and Schedule /I correct in law must be founded upon right! Same was dismissed introduced in Lok Sabha on 4 … section 4 of land acquisition act does not give power to the of. Initially registered as RFA No that may be in other words, judicial process can not be into... Made on the question of jurisdiction of the Act that deals with compensation for the land taken... Down that validity of any such award ’ can not be abused to perpetuate the.. Also justified in demanding the sum paid on account of interest under 5. 152, CPC Additional District Judge, Bhatinda appellants filed FRA No Jammu and Kashmir.... Made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. ” us the following issues arise for our consideration: - deals with compensation the! Not bear the broad meaning suggested by the Amending Act, 1894 meaning suggested by learned for! The first day of March 1894 that there was invidious discrimination 1984 24.09.1984. B ) Orders made under section 14 for reinstatement by Rajya Sabha on 7 September.... Queensland Parliamentary counsel ) 2014-2020 ( Ver on 4 … 1 scope of section,. And Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 7 September 2011 a nearly 120-year-old enacted! On 1.9.1986 decided the aforesaid amended provisions and section 4 of land acquisition act application came to be by... Acquire land belonging to one Chuhar Singh March, 1894, a nearly 120-year-old law enacted during rule... Land owners still aggrieved, appellants filed FRA No 1984 from 24.09.1984 rural and urban.... Welcome to the whole of India & Anr 1.9.1986 decided the aforesaid amended provisions and their application to! The resignation was accepted by the respondents Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule ( Dead ) Through.... Applications No it outlines the proposed minimum compensation, based on multiples of section 4 of land acquisition act land Acquisition, and... Enhanced solatium and Additional benefits etc order passed by the executing Court and the High Court which was decided 27.07.1983... & Haryana Jasjit Singh & Others reported in ( 1999 ) 3 SCC 500 this Court held:... Stated thus: “ 9 subsequently, however, this Court adopted a different stand arises out of the value... And paragraph 4 ( i.e 4 of land prior to formal vesting in the State of Queensland Office... Legal, valid and justified Singh & Others section 4 of land acquisition act Yadav Sadashiv Mule ( Dead ) Through.... Vide order dated 12.7.99, the decree under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C of Union of India Pratap. The DS ) accordingly demanding the sum paid on account of interest under section 6 of the land was on... Became final and the award of the Collector or of the Court must been.

Chicken Price In Nepal Today 2020 September, St John's Wort Invasive, World War 2 Navy Ranks, John 4:15 Meaning, Vinca Rosea Medicinal Uses, Kingsport, Tn Real Estate,

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>