Nueva Delhi: frowning before a vexatory litigation related to land acquisition, which delays projects for decades, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that when a government acquires land for public purposes using its sovereign powers, it cannot be frustrated by the creation of third -party rights after the acquisition.
A Bank of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Judge Sanjay Kumar said that even a public body for whom an acquisition was made cannot give the land to someone through a private agreement, since only the government has the power to withdraw the acquisition of the entire earth, or a part of it.
The litigation related to the acquired land, mainly due to the creation of third party rights, has been a key factor for the delay in the execution of many projects, especially national roads.
This failure can help relieve impediments caused by the dispute after the acquisition.
The case that justified the ruling belonged to the acquisition of 33 acres containing Narela-Bawana Road to allow the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to establish its grain market. The acquisition notification was issued on October 30, 1963 and the compensation determined by the prize issued on January 10, 1986. When a woman claimed the property on one part of the Earth, the president of the Board surreptitiously signed in a private agreement with her and agreed to release half of the land claimed to her while allowing him to claim compensation for the other half.
SC: Validation of the offer to annul that the Earth of the State buys nothing less than allowing fraud
When writing the trial, Judge Kumar said that the flow of events became more curious and more curious as in ‘Alicia in Wonderland’. After the withdrawal of the president, the Board disputed the agreement. But the Superior Court of Delhi allowed women’s plea for the arbitration of the dispute with the Board related to the acquired land. The referee designated by the HC ruled in favor of women and said that the return of the earth was valid.
“When the State uses its sovereign power of eminent domain And it acquires land for a public purpose, such exercise cannot be established by anything by the beneficiary of said acquisition, the Board, by holding a private agreement shortly after the acquisition to reverse the use of the power of the eminent domain by the State, “Judge Kumar said.” “Validating this high company by a statutory beneficiary of a compulsing acquisition would be a little shorter than a power. By the State,” he added.
“Given the additional fact that the sole objective of this agreement was to frustrate the mandatory acquisition of the Earth in the subject returning a portion of the same to Bhagwan Devi, the agreement clearly opposed all the principles of the law,” the bank told the annular the orders of the HC and the arbitral prize.