Skip to main content

Only state is necessary party when acquisition for public purpose

In Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., rejecting the application of Maruti Udyog Ltd. to be impleaded into the matter as it was a necessary party, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that The acquisition may either be for a 'public purpose' as defined under Section 3(f) or for a company under Part-VII of the Act. If the acquisition is for a public purpose (as the present case), the land vests in the State after the collector makes an award and the possession is taken.

"Till the award is made, no person other than State comes into the picture. Once the land vests in the State, the acquisition is complete. Any transferee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition," the bench said.

It said that the state may transfer the land by public auction or by allotment at any price and the person whose land is acquired has no concern at all.

"The mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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...
7 comments
Read more

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more