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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more