LAND LAW CASES first few units

Question 1

Shankari Prasad Case

Answer 1

The provisional Parliament is competent to exercise the power of
amending the Constitution under Article 368

Question 2

Case Law – Waman Rao and Others v Union of India – 1981 - Five Judge
Bench

Answer 2

Amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 by
which the Ninth Schedule was amended from time to time by inclusion of
various Acts, regulations therein were open to challenge on the ground
that they, or any one or more of them, are beyond the constituent power of
Parliament since they damage the basic or essential features of the
Constitution or its basic structure.
* Reference made by the constitution bench that Wamanrao needs to be
reconsidered by a larger bench – to verify its correctness – address
perceived infirmities – I R Cohelo.

Question 3

Case Law – I R Coelho v State of TN – 9 Judge bench –

Answer 3

All amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24th April, 1973 by
which the Ninth Schedule is amended by inclusion of various laws therein
shall have to be tested on the touchstone of the basic or essential features
of the Constitution as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article
19, and the principles underlying them. To put it differently even though
an Act is put in the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment, its
provisions would be open to attack on the ground that they destroy or
damage the basic structure if the fundamental right or rights taken away
or abrogated pertains or pertain to the basic structure.

Question 4

Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki &
Ors

Answer 4

• Explaining what amounts to payment of compensation:
• The compensation may be said to have been “paid” within the meaning of
  Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of
  compensation in court / made that amount available to the interested person.

here it was deposited in the government treasury= but that is not in accordance with the act and the procedure must be strictly followed. SO as compensation has nottn paid for 5 years

• Land acquisition deemed to have lapsed as mandated by section 24.

Question 5

Delhi Development Authority v. Kusham Jain

Answer 5

• There was no evidence on record to show an offer of payment of money was made to the land owner at the time of passing the Award.
• Neither – was there any evidence that after the Award was made, notice was issued to the land owners requesting them to receive the compensation.
• Further – no evidence - that any effort was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector - for disbursing the compensation to the land owners
  In this case= - the money was to be deposited in the treasury only after these steps had been under taken – which is not the case here.
• Strangely, what is deposited in Court in the year 2013 is the amount in terms of the Award passed in the year 1986, without any interest as provided under the Act for the intervening period.

thus the proceedings have lapsed and now can be initiated under the new act.

Question 6

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others

Answer 6

Section 24= where
an award has been made – u/s 11 of the 1894 Act - five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act - but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid - the said proceedings under the old Act - shall be deemed to have lapsed.

do we read the “ or “ as or, or can we read it as “and”?

HELD: , in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
* The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of
proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their
inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the Act of 2013 came into force. thus it should be read as “AND”

Question 7

Case Law - Kedarnath Yadav v State of West Bengal and others – The Singur
Case.

Answer 7

Justice Gowda Held - Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act, which defines what
public purpose is for the purpose of acquisition of land, clearly indicates
that the acquisition of land for companies is not covered within the public
purpose. Here land acquired for a particular company – if state would
have acquired it for an industrial estate – it would have been an different story.

It is also a well settled principle
of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under
any statute the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
* The acquisition of land of the landowners/cultivators in the instant case
is declared as illegal and void.
* Let possession of the lands be restored to the landowners/cultivators within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order.
* The compensation which has already been paid to the land
owners/cultivators shall not be recovered by the state government as they have been deprived of the occupation and enjoyment of their lands for the last ten year.