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>Court sets aside judgments, deems govt withdrawal invalid under Land Acquisition Act, emphasizes notification compliance.</h1> <h3>M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors Author: D Wadhwa</h3> The Supreme Court allowed all appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing SCA 1568/87 and SCA 5149/89, and allowing SCA 5171/91. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (Rules 3 and 4).2. Service of notice u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Legality of the State Government's withdrawal from acquisition u/s 48 of the Act.4. Possession of the land by the acquiring body.Summary:Issue 1: Compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963:The High Court set aside the acquisition in SCA 1568/87 and SCA 5149/89 due to non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4. However, the Supreme Court found that there were no specific allegations of non-compliance in the writ petitions. The State Government had constituted a Committee as required by Rule 3, and detailed reports were prepared and submitted. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in finding non-compliance with these rules.Issue 2: Service of Notice u/s 9 of the Act:In SCA 5149/89, the High Court held that the petitioners were not served notice u/s 9 before the award. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners themselves admitted receiving notices and making representations. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion incorrect.Issue 3: Legality of the State Government's Withdrawal from Acquisition u/s 48:In SCA 5171/91, the High Court upheld the State Government's decision to withdraw from acquisition u/s 48, stating it was neither illegal nor ultra vires. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the withdrawal was not valid without issuing a notification u/s 48 and without giving the company (L&T Ltd.) an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court emphasized that the State Government must issue a notification and provide reasons for withdrawal, which must be communicated to the company.Issue 4: Possession of the Land by the Acquiring Body:The High Court found that actual physical possession was not handed over to L&T Ltd. The Supreme Court, however, relied on the Panchanama and other records showing possession was taken on July 5, 1989, and held that the High Court incorrectly analyzed the evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that possession was indeed handed over to L&T Ltd.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed all appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed SCA 1568/87 and SCA 5149/89, and allowed SCA 5171/91. The Yadi (Memos) dated 11.4.91 and 3.5.91, containing orders of the State Government withdrawing from acquisition, were quashed. The respondents were directed to complete the acquisition proceedings as per the notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
