Topic
The Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) governs the process of acquiring private land for public purposes in India, ensuring fair compensation and social impact assessments.
Bombay High Court holds that failure to restore land possession after lapse under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 constitutes contempt. The Court directs Pune Municipal Corporation to file an affidavit clarifying its role in continued possession, potentially exposing officials to contempt proceedings.
Karnataka High Court reinforces that landowners excluded from partial awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 if the award amount was not deposited. The ruling clarifies that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act operates as a safeguard, ensuring fair compensation even in cases of procedural lapses by authorities.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that land irrigated by a natural nullah, even without tube-wells, canals, or wells, qualifies as irrigated land under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. This sets a precedent for fairer compensation in rural acquisition cases where traditional irrigation infrastructure is absent, directly benefiting thousands of small landholders in semi-arid regions.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that authorities cannot demolish or mark properties under land acquisition without strict compliance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The judgment reinforces that bypassing statutory due process violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A, setting a precedent for property owners facing arbitrary state action.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that police lack jurisdiction to summon parties in civil disputes, such as land acquisition compensation, without following statutory remedies under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The ruling reinforces that writ petitions under Article 226 are the appropriate recourse for aggrieved parties, preventing arbitrary police interference in civil matters.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that land submerged due to dam construction triggers statutory compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, regardless of whether formal acquisition proceedings were initiated. This sets a critical precedent for displaced landowners in infrastructure projects, mandating authorities to identify, demarcate, and pay compensation within 150 days - reinforcing Article 300A’s protection against arbitrary deprivation of property.
The Bombay High Court ruled that under Section 77 of the LARR Act, 2013, authorities cannot demand physical presence of landowners to disburse compensation if identity and supporting documents are duly verified. This clarifies administrative overreach and ensures timely payment to claimants who have fulfilled statutory requirements, particularly those unable to appear in person due to distance, disability, or other legitimate constraints.
Chhattisgarh High Court rules that disputes over apportionment of compensation under the LARR Act, 2013 must be adjudicated through Section 64 proceedings, not writ petitions. The decision reinforces the exclusivity of statutory remedies, ensuring claimants pursue the prescribed legal process to resolve compensation disputes while preserving their right to full compensation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that collectors must examine sufficient cause for delay under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and cannot reject applications mechanically.