TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns High Court decision on locus standi, orders resumption of park acquisition.</h1> <h3>Municipal Committee, Bhatinda Versus Land Acquisition Collector.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision on the appellant's locus standi and the Additional Deputy Commissioner's ... - Issues:1. Locus standi of the appellant to file the writ petition.2. Competency of the State Government to abandon land acquisition.Locus Standi of the Appellant:The case involved an appeal against the High Court's judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging the quashing of land acquisition proceedings for a public park. The appellant's locus standi was questioned by the High Court, citing the State Government's authority to abandon land acquisition. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, highlighting that the acquisition was requested by the appellant for the public park's construction. The Court noted the appellant's involvement in earlier proceedings and the lis between the parties, establishing the appellant's aggrieved status. Consequently, the High Court's decision on the appellant's locus standi was overturned.Competency of State Government to Abandon Acquisition:The High Court upheld the quashing of acquisition proceedings, asserting the State Government's competence to abandon land acquisition for valid reasons. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence of the State Government withdrawing from the acquisition as required under Section 48 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Additional Deputy Commissioner's decision to deem the notifications lapsed was unfounded, as it contradicted previous court rulings disapproving such actions. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in supporting the Additional Deputy Commissioner's order and directed the Collector to resume the acquisition proceedings as per the law.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the Additional Deputy Commissioner's order. The Court directed the Collector to proceed with the acquisition process in compliance with the law, emphasizing the necessity of following legal procedures in land acquisition matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
