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>Invalidation of Delhi Administration's Land Acquisition Notifications due to deficiency; damages awarded; arbitrator appointed for compensation determination.</h1> <h3>Banwari Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors.</h3> Banwari Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors. - 1991 (1) DRJ Suppl 317 Issues:Challenge to Notifications under Land Acquisition Act, Urgency of acquisition, Compliance with Section 5A objections, Purpose of acquisition, Non-compliance with Section 17(3-A) regarding compensation, Abuse of powers by Delhi Administration, Fraud on powers, Damages for illegal possession, Appointment of Arbitrator for determining damages.Detailed Analysis:The petitioners challenged Notifications issued by Delhi Administration under the Land Acquisition Act, questioning the urgency and purpose of acquisition. The property in question was a commercial building used by the American Embassy, situated in a prime commercial area. The Delhi Administration invoked urgency provisions under Section 17(1) for residential use of government servants, leading to a prolonged acquisition process. The petitioners argued that the Notifications lacked clarity on urgency and deprived them of the right to raise objections under Section 5A. The Delhi Administration justified the acquisition for residential purposes and claimed steps were taken for compensation payment under Section 17(3-A).The court referred to precedents emphasizing the importance of clearly stating urgency in Notifications under Section 17. It highlighted cases where lack of clarity led to Notification invalidation. In this case, the court found the Notifications deficient as urgency was not explicitly mentioned. The court criticized the Delhi Administration for occupying the property despite having time to make alternate arrangements, deeming the urgency claim invalid. Non-compliance with Section 17(3-A) regarding compensation was also noted, with no satisfactory explanation provided by the Delhi Administration.The court condemned the Delhi Administration's actions as an abuse of powers, citing the acquisition of a commercial property for residential use as unjustified. The failure to offer compensation as required and deviation from established non-acquisition policies for built-up areas were considered serious transgressions. The court invoked a Supreme Court ruling on misuse of power for alien purposes, labeling the Notifications and subsequent Award as ultra vires and fraudulent. Consequently, the court quashed the Notifications and directed the Delhi Administration to hand over the property to the petitioners, awarding damages for illegal possession.In addressing the issue of damages, the court referred to a Supreme Court case appointing an arbitrator for determining damages in similar cases. An arbitrator was appointed to assess damages payable by the Delhi Administration, providing a more efficient resolution than civil court proceedings. The court outlined the arbitrator's role, timeline for assessment, and initial fee payments by both parties. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition, setting terms for damages determination, and awarding costs to the petitioners.
TaxTMI 