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>State Government's land acquisition declaration invalid without accepting Collector's recommendations or providing rejection reasons under Section 6</h1> <h3>Sharma Agro Industries Versus State of Haryana</h3> Sharma Agro Industries Versus State of Haryana - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.3. Consideration of recommendations by the Land Acquisition Collector and procedural compliance under Section 5A.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Land Acquisition Proceedings:The appeals challenge the High Court's decision upholding the acquisition of the Appellant's land for industrial purposes. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a declaration under Section 6, despite recommendations against acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, holding that the acquisition was for an important public purpose and could not be invalidated on the grounds presented.2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013:The Appellant argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013, as the award was made more than five years before the Act's commencement, and neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The Supreme Court, referencing its decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, reiterated that proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under these circumstances, rendering the acquisition invalid. The Court emphasized that compensation deposited in the government treasury does not equate to payment to the landowners.3. Consideration of Recommendations by the Land Acquisition Collector:The Appellant contended that the State Government failed to consider the Land Acquisition Collector's recommendations, which advised against acquiring the land. The Supreme Court highlighted that the failure to consider these recommendations or provide reasons for their rejection vitiated the proceedings. The Court cited precedents, including Vinod Kumar, emphasizing that the State must apply its mind to the Collector's report and provide cogent reasons if it chooses to deviate from the recommendations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings were invalid on two grounds: the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013, and the failure to adhere to procedural requirements under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court quashed the acquisition notification and the award, allowing the appeals without costs. The judgment underscores the necessity for the State to comply with procedural mandates and consider substantive recommendations during land acquisition processes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
