Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 310 - SC - Indian LawsLand Acquisition - She had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice She got the information first time that she was in illegal possession she was directed to demolish the structure put up by her - The Court has given liberty to the appellant to move an application for making reference within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference, if such an application is filed within a period of four weeks thereafter, and the Court further directed the Tribunal to decide the reference within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. The only question remains for our consideration is as to whether the provisions of notice are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the Award and subsequent proceedings - Held that :- we are not in a position to examine the correctness of that submission or making any observation regarding the law of limitation for the purpose of making reference. This question is left open. Thus in accordance with the provision of notice the Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, the Writ Court rejected the contentions raised by the appellant after being fully satisfied that the notice under provision of notice was affixed on the part of the land in dispute as the appellant was not available. Similarly Submissions have been made on behalf of the respondents that as the Court lacks competence to extend the period of limitation, direction issued by the High Court giving liberty to the appellant herein to make an application for making reference is without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed as decided in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 269; and many others.
|