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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more