Skip to main content

Court stay to be counted in land acquisition cases: HC

In a significant judgment benefitting landowners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the period of stay granted by the courts has to be counted while computing five-year period prescribed under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 for release of land.

The ruling is important as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, says proceedings shall deemed to have lapsed if the award is passed more than five years ago, but possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid.

It now means that the stay period will be taken into consideration. In case of inability of the state to take possession of land due to stay by the courts for five years or more, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.

The matter was placed before the High Court Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta, GS Sandhawalia and Kuldeep Singh. Justices Hemant Gupta and GS Sandhawalia ruled: "We hold that irrespective of any interim orders passed by the court, the proceedings shall stand lapsed". Justice Kuldeep Singh, however, gave a dissenting note on certain issues.

The Bench was assisted by a battery of lawyers, including ML Sarin, Mohan Jain, Hemant Sarin, Nitin Sarin, Shailendra Jain, RS Rai, Puneet Bali, Fateh Saini and Dr Ashwani Kumar. The vital question of law before the Bench was whether the period of stay granted by the courts is to be excluded while computing five-year period prescribed under the Act.

Appearing on behalf of landowners and farmers, Mohan Jain said the state government was handing  land to private builders after acquiring it from farmers and land owners. He argued most of the acquired land had been given by the government to private builders. He said the purpose of the right to fair compensation could be defeated if the period of stay is excluded while counting five-year period.

 Article referred: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/court-stay-to-be-counted-in-land-acquisition-cases-hc/22313.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more