High Court of Karnataka Hears Multiple Writ Petitions on Land Acquisition Lapsing Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitions sought declarations that acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act and Mysore Urban Development Authority Act had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the BDA Act and MUDA Act have lapsed by operation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (03) 10

W.P. Nos.38868-38870/2015, W.P. Nos.38871-38874/2015, W.P. Nos.35858 and 35880-35881/2013, W.P. No.82/2015, W.P. Nos.26980-26982/2015, W.P. No.83/2015, W.P. Nos.15616-15620/2013, W.P. No.40076/2014

2016-03-10

Justice Anand Byrareddy

Shri L. Nageshwara Rao, Shri V. Lakshminarayana, Shri C.M.Nagabhushan, Shri Ashok Haranahalli, Shri S.M.Chandrashekhar for petitioners; Shri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General, Shri S. Vijay Shankar for respondents

Smt. K.M.Chikkathayamma and others (Petitioners in W.P. Nos.38868-38870/2015 and connected matters)

State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Bangalore Development Authority, Special Land Acquisition Officers

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging land acquisition proceedings on the ground of lapsing under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Remedy Sought

Declare that land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act; quash notifications; issue no-objection certificates

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that land acquisition proceedings initiated for urban development had not been completed and lapsed by operation of law under the 2013 Act

Issues

Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and MUDA Act have lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Procedural History

Multiple writ petitions were filed under Articles 226 and 227 challenging land acquisition proceedings; they were connected and heard together by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24
  • Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Sections 17(1), 19(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Challenging Unreasoned Award by Arbitrator — Modification of Interest Awarded. The court found that the unreasoned award was not pressed before the High Court and modified the interest awarded.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds CAT Order Reinstating Suspended Police Officer Due to Non-Review Under Rule 3(8) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Continued suspension beyond 90 days without mandatory review renders suspension ille...