Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants could successfully challenge the land acquisition notification after the acquisition had become final, compensation had been paid, the land had vested in the State, and the original public purpose was said to have ceased.
Analysis: The acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had attained finality long before the writ proceedings. Compensation had been paid to the predecessors-in-title, possession had been taken, and the land had vested in the State. The arrangement under Chapter VII of the Act also contemplated surrender of the land to the Government on cessation of the original public purpose. The land was thereafter resumed and allotted for another public purpose. In these circumstances, the challenge raised after about three decades could not be entertained, and the contention based on Sections 40 and 44-B of the Act was rejected.
Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition was not maintainable and the appellants were not entitled to restitution or interference with the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: Once acquisition has become final, compensation has been accepted, and the land has vested in the State, a belated challenge to the acquisition or to a subsequent change in public purpose is not maintainable.