On 4th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh held that the Land Acquisition Collector is obliged to act in a reasonable manner and he cannot arbitrarily determine the compensation offered to the land owner. It also held that while discharging such a function, the LAC is supposed to act reasonably like any other administrative authority. Fairness in action is the hallmark of good governance. When it appears to the Court that the exercise of functioning is irrational, improper and lacs fairness attracting Wednesbury's principle, the Court would not be powerless to intervene. Article 226 gives wide power to the High Courts to issue writs in appropriate cases.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition to seek writ to a quash and set aside the award No. 05/2013-14 dated 27.12.2013 inasmuch, as, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) has fixed the market value of the land of the petitioner at the minimum rate fixed by the Government for agricultural land, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 53 lacs per acre. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to refix the market value of the land of the petitioner while taking into consideration that it is urbanised land, and land use is non-agricultural/ urban/ residential, after giving the opportunity to the petitioner to file his claim for fixing market value, and after granting an
Contention of the petitioner:
The following contention has been submitted by the petitioner:
- Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not take steps for payment of compensation to the petitioner within the time prescribed for taking possession in the earlier judicial proceedings.
- The petitioner states that the land in question is located in Zone F and is near Mehrauli-Mahipalpur Road. The petitioner claims that the land use of the petitioner’s land is residential as per master plan, and the same forms part of the urban area opportunity of hearing.
Contention of the respondent: ;
Mr. Yeeshu Jain argued on the following grounds:
1. It was submitted that all pleas were open to the petitioner to take when he preferred the said writ petition. The writ petition was contested by the respondents and by a detailed judgment running into 51 pages, the same was dismissed. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to, at this stage, and again approach this Court to assail the same award.
2. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, only because he has not availed of, and may not be in a position to avail of the alternative efficacious statutory remedy due to the bar of limitation.
In the view of the above, the court held that there is no merit in the present writ petition, and the same is clearly barred not only by the principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC/constructive res judicata, but also by delay and laches.
SOURCE ;w.latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments