9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. 3. Ownership claims for specific plots of land. 4. Allegations of mala fide intentions in acquisition proceedings. 5. Disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and existence of structures on the land. 6. Applicability of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns the validity of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the construction of a Market Yard. The acquisition of 60 plots of land belonging to various individuals was initiated by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. The appellants challenged the proceedings, claiming lack of knowledge and prejudice due to the exemption of Section 5-A under Section 17(4) of the Act. The High Court initially granted an interim order but later dismissed the writ petition, leading to the appeal. 2. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was based on the ground of delay, as the appellants filed the petition nearly two and a half years after the notifications were issued. The court highlighted the presumption of due performance of official acts and the lack of challenge by other landowners. The delay was deemed prejudicial to public interest, leading to the failure of the appeal on this ground. 3. Ownership claims for specific plots, such as plot numbers 249, 261, and 133, were contested. Disputed facts regarding ownership, existence of structures, and timing of land purchases were raised. The court found no substantial merit in the appellants' case, especially when conflicting statements and evidence were presented by both parties. 4. The appellants alleged mala fide intentions in the acquisition proceedings, citing a previous court decision. However, the court noted the absence of such allegations in the present case, leading to the dismissal of this argument. 5. Disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and existence of structures on the land, such as the presence of a house on plot 249, were examined. Conflicting statements and evidence complicated the appellants' case, making it unsuitable for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The applicability of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, exempting Section 5-A, was discussed. Despite administrative delays in construction, the court found no legal grounds to challenge the order made under Section 17(4). The commencement of construction work further supported the validity of the acquisition proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the lack of grounds for interference in the acquisition proceedings.
|
