Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—The Indore Development Authority case, was applied—The Petitioners are entitled to compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act, as compensation was not paid and physical possession of their land was taken by the Respondents—The Respondents acknowledged the Petitioners' entitlement to compensation and are directed to compute and pay it as per the provisions of the Act—The Court further directed that compensation be determined and awarded without delay—The Petitioners' claim regarding the lapsing of acquisition proceedings was dismissed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority—The petitions were disposed of with instructions to award comp...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Delhi Development Authority appealed a High Court decision that declared the acquisition of land as lapsed due to non-payment of compensation—The High Court relied on a now-overruled Supreme Court decision—The Supreme Court held that since possession of the land was taken in 2006, there was no deemed lapse of acquisition—The appeal was allowed, and the acquisition was not deemed to have lapsed. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—The High Court relied on a decision that has since been overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court—The Supreme Court held that since possession of the land was taken in 1987, it does not constitute a deemed lapse of acquisition as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—The appeal was allowed, and the acquisition was not deemed to have lapsed. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of Acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Involves a dispute over land acquisition in Gujarat, India—The landowner initially agreed to the acquisition but later withdrew consent—The government offered compensation, which the landowner refused to accept—The High Court declared the acquisition as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013—However, the Supreme Court, citing the Indore Development Authority case, ruled that there was no deemed lapse since the possession was taken, and compensation was offered, and quashed the High Court's decision. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—High Court had allowed the writ petition of the respondent, who was a subsequent purchaser of the land—The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to challenge acquisition or its lapsing—The High Court's decision was quashed, and there would be no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings—No costs were awarded. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—High Court relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in the Pune Municipal Corporation case, which was subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench in the Indore Development Authority case—The Supreme Court held that as the appellants claimed possession was taken on 11.07.2008, there was no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings—The High Court's decision was quashed and set aside. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—High Court relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in the Pune Municipal Corporation case, which was subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench in the Indore Development Authority case—The Supreme Court held that the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed, as the possession of the land had been taken and compensation had not been paid due to pending litigation—The High Court's decision was quashed and set aside. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Supreme Court held that, based on the law laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority, there would be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013—The High Court's decision was quashed and set aside—No costs were awarded. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—High Court's decision was based on the absence of possession and compensation, but the appellant argued that the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition—The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge acquisition proceedings and also cited the overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation case by the Constitution Bench in the Indore Development Authority case. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013—The High Court's decision relied on a previous judgment, which was overruled by the Supreme Court in the Indore Development Authority case—The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was erroneous, and there is no deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings—The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Twin conditions—Case involves an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against a High Court judgment that declared the acquisition of certain lands as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013—The High Court's decision was based on the non—payment of compensation—However, the Supreme Court cited the Indore Development Authority case and clarified that for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, both the conditions of non-possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfie—Since only one condition was met, there is no deemed lapse, and...

Compensation—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(3)—Petition under—Allowed by High Court—declared that acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed—Petitioner would be entitled to compensation under Act, 2013—Appeal against—Determination of—High Court has accepted that possession of land in question was already taken over—Even land was put to use by Department—Held once possession of subject land was taken over and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force—As per law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition—Impugned order quash...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Delhi Development Authority appealed a High Court decision that deemed the acquisition of certain land as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013—The Supreme Court ruled that since possession had been taken for most of the land, it couldn't be deemed as lapsed—The High Court decision was quashed, and the appeal was allowed—No costs were awarded.   ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings—The High Court relied on a previous Supreme Court decision which has since been overruled—The Supreme Court, following the recent ruling in Indore Development Authority v—Shailendra, held that the land acquisition had not lapsed—The High Court's judgment was quashed, and there was no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013     ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a High Court judgment that deemed the land acquisition to have lapsed—The original writ petitioner was a subsequent purchaser who bought the land after the acquisition proceedings—The appellants argued that the subsequent purchaser had no standing to challenge the acquisition proceedings or their lapsing—They cited previous Supreme Court decisions that affirmed this principle. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—High Court's judgment was based on a now-overruled Supreme Court decision, and it entertained the petition without verifying ownership—The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the land belonged to Gram Sabha, and the original petitioner wasn't the owner—Therefore, the appeal was allowed—No costs were awarded.   ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—Government of NCT of Delhi and others appealed against a judgment by the High Court of Delhi that declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had relied on a now-overruled decision and applied the law established in a subsequent case—Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—Appeal against—The appellants argued that the land was encroached upon by the petitioners, subsequent purchasers, and they had no right to challenge the acquisition or claim its lapse—The court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the private respondents. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings Order - Appeal against - The matter pertains to an appeal filed against the lapse of land acquisition proceedings—The High Court allowed a writ petition, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This decision was primarily based on the ground that compensation had not been tendered before the enactment of the Act in 2013. It relied on a previous judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183—However, it's important to note that the judgment in the Pune Municipal Corporation case was sp...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—When due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession was not taken over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. ...

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Acquisition proceedings—Challenged by some affected parties before High Court—High Court allowed petition—High Court has specifically noted that compensation has been deposited with Court, but possession of land in question is not taken over—High Court took the view that unless and until compensation is tendered to persons interested, mere deposit of compensation in Court would not be sufficient and cannot be regarded as having paid—Declare that acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013—Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is subject ma...

Constitution of India,Article 226 - which governs writ jurisdiction, the exercise of such jurisdiction is inherently discretionary and founded upon principles of equity. It is not obligatory for the High Court to rectify every single instance of illegality. In cases where correcting an illegality could lead to unjust consequences, the High Court typically refrains from exercising its authority under Article 226 - In a notable instance, while upholding the ongoing acquisition proceedings, the High Court provided substantial relief to the landowners. This relief came in the form of a directive to award compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The compensation granted under this act exceeded the compensation payable under the Land...

These cases concerns whether subsequent purchasers, assignees, power of attorney holders, etc., have the legal standing (locus standi) to file a petition for a declaration of lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013—Appellants argued that transfers of land in these cases were in violation of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, making them void—However, the Supreme Court held that these subsequent parties do have the locus standi to seek a declaration of lapse under the 2013 Act—Court also emphasized the significant changes brought about by the 2013 Act in protecting the interests of those affected by land acquisition. ...

Appellant's case is dismissed, and the issue is governed by previous judgments—Appellant is given six months to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If no fresh proceedings are initiated within this period, the appellant must return physical possession of the land to the owner. No costs are awarded. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—Supreme Court dismisses the appeals by the Delhi Development Authority and grants the appellants one year to initiate new land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. ...

Acquisition proceedings—The appellant is granted one year to initiate new acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013—If no new proceedings begin with a Section 11 notification within this year, the appellant, if in possession of the land, must return it to the owner. ...

Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—Appellant's appeal is dismissed as previous judgments cover the issue—The appellant is given one year to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act—If not, they must return the land to the original owner—No costs. ...

Initiation of the Acquisition Proceedings—Appellant is granted one year to initiate new acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—If no new proceedings begin within this timeframe by issuing a Section 11 notification, the appellant, if in possession, must return the land to the original owner. ...

Initiation of the Acquisition Proceedings—Appellant is granted until December 31, 2017, to exercise their liberty under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings—If no such proceedings are initiated by issuing a Section 11 notification within this period, the appellant must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Acquisition Proceedings—Granted leave and addressed an issue that had already been covered by previous judgments—The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was given a one-year period to initiate land acquisition proceedings under a specific act—If no action was taken within that time, possession of the land would be returned to the owner—Pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded. ...

Acquisition Proceedings—The appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh—No fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the period of one year by issuing a Notification, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the owner ...

Issue was already covered by previous judgments—However, the appellant was granted a period of one year to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—If no fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated within this period, the appellant was required to return physical possession of the land to the owner—No costs were awarded, and pending applications were disposed of. ...

Acquisition Proceedings—Granted a one-year period to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and if the appellant is in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings—Such proceedings commence within this one-year period, and the appellant is in possession of the land, they must return physical possession to the owners. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—During this one-year period, the appellant has the opportunity to initiate the land acquisition proceedings afresh—It has been explicitly stated that if the appellant does not initiate fresh acquisition proceedings within the specified one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and if the appellant is in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiate acquisition proceedings afresh—If the appellant does not initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the Act within this one-year period, and if they are in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the owner. ...

Acquisition Proceedings —Granted a one-year period to exercise their right under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh—If the appellant does not initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the Act within this one-year period, and if they are in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the owner. ...

Acquisition proceedings—Granted a one-year period to exercise their right under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh—If the appellants do not initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the Act within this one-year period, and if they are in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of acquisition proceedings—Initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings—The court has made it clear that if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession of the land, must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24 (2)—Initiation of acquisition proceedings—Initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings—The court has made it clear that if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession of the land, must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of acquisition proceedings—Emphasizes that if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession of the land, must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowners. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2) Initiation of acquisition proceedings—Means they have one year to initiate the land acquisition process again—However, it is essential to note that if the appellant fails to start fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act within this one-year period, they must return the physical possession of the land to its original owner—This condition ensures that the appellant does not unnecessarily withhold the land if they do not follow through with the acquisition process within the specified time frame ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—Granted one year to exercise the liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to initiate the acquisition proceedings anew—If no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession of the land, is directed to return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—The appellant has been granted a one-year period within which they can exercise the liberty provided under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—During this one-year period, they have the opportunity to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings—However, if the appellant fails to commence new acquisition proceedings within this one-year timeframe by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and they are in possession of the land, they are required to return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Acquisition proceedings—Possession of Land—Appellants are given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh—No fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellants, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—The appellants are given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh—There is no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the period of one year by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellants, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—The appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh—Court make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the period of one year by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—Appellant has been granted a period of one year to exercise its right as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—This right allows them to initiate the land acquisition proceedings again—However, if the appellant does not commence fresh acquisition proceedings within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and they are currently in possession of the land, they are required to return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Initiation of the acquisition proceedings—Within this one-year period, no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and if the appellant is in possession of the land, they are required to return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Initiation of acquisition proceedings—During this one-year period, the appellant has the opportunity to initiate the land acquisition proceedings again—However, the court has made it explicitly clear that if the appellant does not initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act within this one-year period, they must return physical possession of the land to the original land owner, provided they are in possession of it. ...

Acquisition Proceedings—The appellant has been granted a one-year period, starting from the present date, to exercise the liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to initiate new land acquisition proceedings—It is explicitly stated that if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within this one-year period by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the Act, and if the appellant is currently in possession of the land, they must return the physical possession of the land to the original landowner. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24—Acquisition proceedings—Possession of the land has been taken, and the mere non-payment of compensation will not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Out of the three co-owners, the Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in respect of two co-owners—Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings initiated as per the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, culminating in the Award, have lapsed and are consequently set aside—The appeal is allowed. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)—Acquisition Proceedings—Possession of Land—Special Leave to Appeal was granted in 2013, and applications were filed to dispose of the appeals in light of subsequent court determinations—The Union of India admitted in its Counter Affidavit that compensation had not been paid in accordance with the law—The awards were dated August 6, 2007, and thus, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 applied—Recent judgments clarified that acquisition lapses in such cases—The court rejected the argument that a proviso added by an ordinance had retrospective effect and accepted the applications—The land acquisition proceedings were...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114, Section 151—Appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash the acquisition. The Division Bench of the High Court considered the admission made by the Appellant's counsel that the acquired land had been transferred to third parties, and the Appellant was not in possession. It also noted that the Appellant was not living with her father, and the land had been transferred to third parties who had constructed factories on it. The Division Bench held that the Appellant could not be considered an interested person and that the litigation was filed on behalf of the transferees. As a result, the Appellant did not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings, and the appeal was dismissed. ...

Acquisition proceedings—Appellants filed a Writ Petition challenging the legality of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court issued directions without specifying their connection to the writ petition. The Supreme Court notes that clarity on the linkage would have avoided issues. It deems it appropriate to instruct the High Court to resolve the pending writ petition. The appeal is disposed of with this directive, seeking a more precise connection between the directions and the ongoing writ proceedings. ...

In a land acquisition case under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, a review petition was filed after dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court—The High Court, in an order dated 18-5-2000, directed the review petition to be heard by a single judge, citing Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules—Subsequently, on 2-6-2000, the single judge admitted the review petition—Challenging this, the appellant contended that the Chief Justice's roster-making powers were infringed—The Supreme Court, expressing doubts about the correctness of a similar precedent, set aside the orders of 18-5-2000 and 2-6-2000—The Court directed the review petition to be heard by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, emphasizing that the Chief Justice should promptly constitute the Bench for expeditious ...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 17(1), Section 4(1), Section 5, Section 6—High Court sets aside acquisition proceedings initiated during pendency of eviction suit, alleging ulterior motive to circumvent court orders—Insufficient reasoning and failure to address relevant issues noted by Supreme Court—High Court judgment lacks satisfactory discussion and fails to determine if acquisition was for public purpose or a colorable exercise of power—Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, remands writ petition for fresh disposal, emphasizing proper consideration of all relevant issues and expeditious resolution—Parties may file additional pleadings—No expression of opinion on merits provided—Appeal allowed, parties to bear own costs. ...