Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Land Acquisition Act 1894

    Uploaded by

    Bidisha Ghoshal
    The appellants had acquired lands that were taken for a gas compressor station project. They were awarded compensation of Rs. 69 per square meter but challenged the acquisition in court. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the appeals based on delay. The appellants then filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within six months, but it was also dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court has now set aside the previous orders, noting that the facts of the case were not properly considered regarding the acquisition proceedings and award. The High Court should have intervened in the Reference Court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Land Acquisition Act 1894

    Uploaded by

    Bidisha Ghoshal
    22 views2 pages
    The appellants had acquired lands that were taken for a gas compressor station project. They were awarded compensation of Rs. 69 per square meter but challenged the acquisition in court. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the appeals based on delay. The appellants then filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within six months, but it was also dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court has now set aside the previous orders, noting that the facts of the case were not properly considered regarding the acquisition proceedings and award. The High Court should have intervened in the Reference Court's decision.

    Original Title

    LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellants had acquired lands that were taken for a gas compressor station project. They were awarded compensation of Rs. 69 per square meter but challenged the acquisition in court. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the appeals based on delay. The appellants then filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within six months, but it was also dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court has now set aside the previous orders, noting that the facts of the case were not properly considered regarding the acquisition proceedings and award. The High Court should have intervened in the Reference Court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views2 pages

    Land Acquisition Act 1894

    Uploaded by

    Bidisha Ghoshal
    The appellants had acquired lands that were taken for a gas compressor station project. They were awarded compensation of Rs. 69 per square meter but challenged the acquisition in court. The High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the appeals based on delay. The appellants then filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within six months, but it was also dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court has now set aside the previous orders, noting that the facts of the case were not properly considered regarding the acquisition proceedings and award. The High Court should have intervened in the Reference Court's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TOPIC- “Facts of a case should be considered before using Section

    18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Supreme Court”.

    WORD ANALYSIS
    In the present case, the appellants had acquired some valuable lands in Surat and for which they
    were awarded with a compensation of Rs. 69 per square meter by the Land Acquisition
    Officer/Collector on 6 April 2011. A notice u/s 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was also issued to them on
    25 April 2011.

    Thereafter, the appellants filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court challenging the
    notification which was issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 for acquiring the lands in question for
    the construction of Gas Compressor Station and necessary facilities under the Reliance Gas
    Transportation, Surat on 30 July 2008 and also on the award which was given to them on 6 April
    2011.

    But the High Court dismissed the above application on 7 August 2012, but reserved liberty with
    the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of the
    compensation or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled.

    Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before this Court which
    was also dismissed on 11 April 2013 on the ground of delay (u/s 18 of the Act, 1894) as well as
    on merits.

    Thereafter, the appellants filed reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 which was also dismissed by the
    Reference Court due to delay (as specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894).

    The appellants again filed a First Appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed on the
    same ground stated above.

    In the present scenario, the appellant submitted that they filed the reference u/s 18 of the Act
    1894 within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition.
    Hence, the Reference Court should have considered the same on merits. Even the High Court
    should not have dismissed the petition on the same grounds of limitation.

    In the present scenario, the appellant urged to exclude the facts and circumstances of the case
    and the acquisition proceedings, from the time taken by them to approach the High Court with a
    writ petition.

    Therefore, the Supreme Court has correctly disregarded the orders given by the Reference Court
    and the Division Bench of the High Court. The respective appellants have challenged the
    acquisition proceeding and the award which has been granted to them u/s 12(2) of the Act, 1894
    which was not at all considered. Even though, both the Courts have reserved liberty in favour of
    the appellants but that did not gave light to the main proposition of the entire application. The
    Court thereby, correctly stated that the observation made on the delay to file the petition should
    be read while considering the prayer of the appellants. Therefore, it was declared that the High
    Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the Reference Court.

    This Court have correctly uphold the crucial point i.e facts of the case which was not applicable
    in the aforesaid two decisions that was passed by the Reference Court and the Division Bench of
    the High Court.

    Henceforth, the Court quashed and set aside the orders given by both the Court and allowed the
    present appeal filed by the applicants.

    You might also like