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 land acquisition proceedings, where no award was passed and possession was not taken for about three decades after the final notification, had lapsed and stood abandoned, and whether a subsequent purchaser could seek such declaration.
Analysis: The acquisition remained incomplete for an unduly long period, despite the final notification having been issued decades earlier. No award had been passed, possession had not been taken, and the land had remained with the owners, who later sold it after waiting for years. The Court held that the authority vested with acquisition power must exercise it within a reasonable period, and that prolonged inaction made continuation of the acquisition arbitrary. It further held that once the acquisition had effectively been abandoned by efflux of time, the bar against a subsequent purchaser challenging acquisition did not apply, because the original owner had regained the right to deal with the property and the purchaser could protect that interest. The Court also noted that the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A includes a right to just compensation within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings had lapsed and stood abandoned, and the writ petitions were maintainable and succeeded.