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>Land Acquisition Proceedings Lapse Due to Unpaid Compensation and Untaken Possession Under 2013 Act's Section 24(2.</h1> <h3>M/s G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others </h3> M/s G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited Versus State of Haryana and others - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.2. Determination of whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed.3. Application of legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.Analysis:The petitioners, owners of specific land parcels, challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners contended that despite making representations and recommendations for the release of their land, no action was taken, and no compensation was paid. They argued that as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, if an award has been made, but possession is not taken or compensation not paid for five years prior to the new Act's commencement, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation case supported this contention.The Court examined the facts and found that despite awards in 2006 and 2007, possession was not taken, and compensation remained unpaid. Citing the legal fiction under Section 24(2), the Court held that the conditions for lapse of acquisition proceedings were satisfied. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in similar cases, the Court concluded that the acquisition proceedings for both petitioners' lands had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act.In light of the settled law by the Supreme Court, the key issue revolved around whether the conditions of Section 24(2) were met in the petitioners' case. The Court noted the absence of possession transfer and compensation payment to the petitioners despite awards issued years earlier. Supporting documents provided by the petitioners further substantiated their claim. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, ruling that the acquisition proceedings for both petitioners' lands were deemed to have lapsed in accordance with Section 24(2) of the New Act.Therefore, the Court granted relief to the petitioners, declaring the acquisition proceedings for their respective lands as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
