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 Validates Land Acquisition Notifications & Emphasizes Timely Compliance</h1> <h3>Om Parkash Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of notifications and declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It emphasized the application ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Validity of declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Applicability of stay orders to landowners who did not obtain stay.4. Delay and laches in filing writ petitions.5. Compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.6. Impact of subsequent purchasers on the acquisition process.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Notifications under Section 4The Lt. Governor issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.11.1980 and 25.11.1980 to acquire over 50,000 bighas of land in Delhi. The landowners challenged these notifications, but the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, and no appeals were filed, making the judgment final.Issue 2: Validity of Declarations under Section 6The declarations under Section 6 were issued on 20.05.1985, 06.06.1985, 07.06.1985, and 26.02.1986. The appellants argued that these declarations were issued beyond the statutory period of three years from the notifications under Section 4, rendering the acquisition illegal and void. However, the court held that the period of limitation for issuing declarations under Section 6 is extended by the period during which any stay order was in operation, even if the stay was granted in cases involving other landowners.Issue 3: Applicability of Stay OrdersThe court ruled that stay orders granted in one case apply to all landowners covered by the same Section 4 notification, regardless of whether they were parties to the stay order. This interpretation was supported by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in B.R. Gupta-I and upheld by the Supreme Court in Abhey Ram.Issue 4: Delay and Laches in Filing Writ PetitionsThe court found that many appellants filed their petitions with significant delays, some as late as 2000 or 2002. The High Court dismissed these petitions on the grounds of delay and laches. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the appellants should have been vigilant and that the long delay could not be condoned.Issue 5: Compliance with Section 5AThe appellants argued that they were not given a proper hearing under Section 5A of the Act. However, the court found that the Land Acquisition Collector had heard the objections and forwarded them to the Lt. Governor, who considered them before issuing the declarations. The court held that there was full compliance with the provisions of the Act.Issue 6: Impact of Subsequent PurchasersThe court ruled that subsequent purchasers who bought land during the 'eclipse period' (between the judgment in B.R. Gupta-I and Abhey Ram) could not claim ownership free from acquisition. The court held that the acquisition process continues to hold good for all lands not specifically exempted by court orders.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the notifications and declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court emphasized that stay orders in one case apply to all landowners covered by the same notification, and delays in filing petitions cannot be condoned. The court also confirmed that there was full compliance with Section 5A and that subsequent purchasers could not avoid the acquisition process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
