Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Land Acquisition Case Law Digest Collections

Land Acquisition Case Law Digest Collections

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,610|Likes:
Supreme Court Case Laws regarding land acquisition - compiled from different sources.
Supreme Court Case Laws regarding land acquisition - compiled from different sources.

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 ADVOCATE
 
TUMKUR
 
9880339764
 
HOW LAND ACQUISITION OBJECTIONS TO BE CONSIDEREDState Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors AIR 1980 SC 319,
Consideration of the objections wasmandatory, It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to carefulexamination; to ponder; study, meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine thedocuments in question is sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to showthat there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtainingand examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite to the making of the orderwould be held to be non-existent.The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is
 
entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. Whenthe custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion.In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated. "I repeat. . .that all power is a trust -- that we are accountable for its exercise -- that from the people, and for thepeople, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide forthe end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in whichthe action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intend of the power,whether this be malice laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If 
 
considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impelsthe action mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act"When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of anyperson. The violation of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate thereasons by administrative authority is liable to be challenged before courts.
WHEN LAYOUT ARE COMPLETE
The layouts are not complete. Sites are not formed. A Division Bench of High Court in
M. Maniklal v.State of Mysore and Ors, 1968(1) Mys. L.J. 416,
while dealing with a case under the City of Bangalore
 
Improvement Act, 1945 as to what constitutes a "layout", has held as follows.-- "We do not accede to theargument that the expression "layout" means no more than the making of marks on the acquiredproperty for dividing it into sites. A layout to which Section 16 refers, includes every step by which anarea of land is converted into building sites to render it suitable for construction of houses and buildings,
 
and necessarily involves the formation of roads, arrangements for conservancy, sewerage, drainage,water supply and lighting, Section 25(2) of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 which insists onthe provision for such amenities in the case of a private layout, indicates that such is the true character of a layout. Section 24 which forbids the sale of sites by the Trust Board until the improvements
 
enumerated in Section 23 are made, yields the same deduction. Such layout which is part of adevelopment scheme reducers congestion in the existing are of the city, and contributes to theelimination of the privation caused by insufficient housing accommodation. So, it assists the expansionand the improvement of the city and so promotes the purposes of the Act. The expansion of a city and itsimprovement are purposes from which flows a direct public benefit and a purpose which is productive of results so advantageous to the public is a clear public purpose".
WITHDRAWAL FROM ACQUISITIONBalwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1767
Neither the Government nor theCommissioner could withdraw under s. 48(1) from the acquisition of any portion of the land which hadbeen taken over by and vested in the Government.
 TAKING POSSESSION:-
 
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs M. D. Bhagwat & Ors
 AIR 1975 SC 1767 “
When Government proceeds totake possession of the land acquired by it under the Act. it must take actual Possession since all interestsin the land are sought to be acquired by it, and there is no question of taking 'symbolical' possession asunderstood under the C.P.C. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. How such actualpossession may be taken would depend on the nature of land. It is not an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient toconstitute taking possession of land in every case. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of legalrequirement that notice should be given to the owner or occupant of the land that possession would betaken at a particular time, though it may be desirable to do so in order to eliminate the possibility of afraudulent or collusive transaction of talking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or theowner ever knowing about it.
 
When a public notice under s. 9(1) of the Act is published at a convenient place or near the land to betaken that Government intends to take possession, ordinarily there would be no question of resisting orimpeding the taking of possession. Delivery of possession by the owner is not required and the Collectorcan enforce surrender under s. 47 if impeded. On taking possession either under s. 16 or s. 17(1), the landvests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, in a proceeding under theLand Acquisition Act for acquisition of land all interests are wiped out, and hence, the taking of possession must be taking actual possession on the spot and not symbolical possession; and surely it cannot be a possession merely on paper.
 
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT MUST YIELD TO PUBLIC INTERESTSupreme Court in the case of Chameli Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. , (1996) 2SCC 549
held that,
in every acquisition by its very compulsory nature for public purpose, the owner
 
may be deprived of the land, the means of his livelihood. The State exercises its power of eminent domainfor public purpose and acqtiires the land. So long as the exercise of the power is for public purpose, theindividual's right of an owner must yield place to the larger public purpose. For compulsory nature of acquisition, Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides payment of solatium to the owner who declines tovoluntarily part with the possession of land. Acquisition in accordance with the procedure is a validexercise of the power. It would not, therefore, amount to deprivation of right to livelihood. Section 23(1)provides compensation for the acquired land at the prices prevailing as on the date of publishing Section4(1) notification, to be quantified at later stages of proceedings. For dispensation or dislocation, interest 
 
is payable under Section 23(1-A) as additional amount and interest under Sections 31 and 28 of the Act to recompensate the loss of right to enjoyment of the property from the date of notification under Section23(1-A) and from the date of possession till compensation is deposited. It would thus be clear that theplea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.
 
UNDER BDA LAND ACQUISITION ORAL HEARING IS NOT CONTEMPLATED:-The Commissioner, Bangalore ... vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. ILR 2006 KAR 318
The SupremeCourt in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H.Narayanaiah , examining the various provisions of the Improvement Act observed, that the Bangalore Act,as its preamble states, is really concerned with the "improvement and future expansion of the City of Bangalore and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out the aforesaidpurposes. As an incident of this improvement and expansion it provides for acquisition of land also. It does not, however, contain a separate code of its own for such acquisitions. Relying on the aforesaidjudgment a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , after considering the said argument held that the provisions of the BDA Act is in pithand substance for improvement of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and acquisition of land is only part of such activity and not the main activity. Acquisition of land is part of the power and not incidental thereto.Such power is conferred on the BDA as part of the improvement itself. For purpose of improvement of theCity of Bangalore, if necessarily land has to be acquired the said contention has no substance. Two sets of provisions under Sections 4, &A and 6 of the LA Act are comparable with the provisions of Sections 17and 18 of the BDA Act. Thus in substance there are provisions under the BDA Act to indicate theproposals for acquisition considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal for acquisition andif such acts do not take place within a period of five years the proceedings would lapse. Further it hasbeen held, under the BDA Act oral hearing is not at all contemplated. The requirement of the provisions of the Act would fee satisfied, if opportunity for filing objections had been given.The judgment in Khoday Distilleries case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the caseof Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , where it was held that, they are in entire agreement with the reasoning and also affirming the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the High Court in KhodayDistilleries case which in their view is squarely in conformity with the ratio of the earlier decision of theCourt in the case of H. Narayanaiah. It was held, so far as the BDA Act is concerned, it is not an Act formere acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority tofacilitate and ensure a planned growth and development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto.The BDA Act so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned in substance andeffect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the said purpose of the BDA and,therefore, it cannot be considered to be part of the LA Act. Thus a scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for its implementation under BDA Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by aprovision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of Section 4 or 5-A which has no application to theactions taken under the BDA Act.
SEVERAL AUTHORITIES LIKE SINGLE WINDOW COMMITTEE & ORS WERE EMPOWERED TO GIVEEXEMPTION TO ACQUIRE LAND:-
The BDA while according approval to the scheme/layout plan would impose a condition that a specificnumber of dwelling units shall be constructed for allotment in favour of middle and low income groups.Once the approval is given, necessary exemption would also be granted under the provisions of theKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Government passed an order on 1-6-1995authorising the BDA to permit Group Housing Projects to be undertaken by landowners in associationwith developers/institutions

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ram Nivas Gupta added this note
In my humble opinion you have make best efforts for the preparation of this paper . Hon"ble Supereme Court is only competent to curb arbitrary action of the state in land acquisition matters otherwise bureaucrats and thg instrumentality of State would abuse the power with the interest to serve their vested interest
Prasad liked this
Akshay Magadum liked this
Digvijay Mote liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->