Skip to main content

Bombay - Non-use of acquired land makes it invalid

It is not just under the old central Land Acquisition Act 1894, but even under state laws, land is acquired and not used for decades, making a mockery of the whole exercise. This was revealed in a judgment of the Supreme Court last week involving the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. In 1991, the state government reserved for acquisition prime land in Mumbai's Vikhroli suburb for laying additional railway tracks. Even more than a decade later, no steps were taken by the authorities to utilise the land and no explanation was given. The land use was changed and the plan was to build a road. The land owner, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co, then moved the Bombay High Court arguing the state government had no power to change the usage. Its writ petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court ruling and quashed the notification due to the long lapse of time. Recently, the Supreme Court had passed several judgments in cases in which the land was not utilised for more than five years after acquisition and, therefore, the new law was applied and acquisitions were quashed. Even last week, in a large batch of cases, the court invoked Section 24 (2) of the 2013 law to set aside the acquisitions (Karnail Kaur vs state of Punjab).

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/non-use-of-acquired-land-makes-it-invalid-115012500802_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...