• Quashing of go

The Puducherry Goverment has framed rules as below under gazette notification dated 16.03.2017: 34. Determination of market value for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.� (i) The reference date for calculation of market value under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 24 shall be 1-1-2014 the date of (commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) (ii) The reference date for calculating additional market value under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Act for land acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be the date of preliminary notification i.e., the date of notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further by gazette notification dated 12.07.2018 the previous section was modified as 2. In the Puducherry Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2016- (i) for rule 34(i) substitute the following, namely,- �(i) The cases covered under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 24 where the notification was issued on or before 31st December, 2013 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which such notification was issued.� Under section  107 the 2013 act gives power to state legislature to enact any any law more beneficial to affected families . In section 109 of the 2013 act  there is no power given to state goverment to enact any rules to reduce the compensation. The puducherry goverment by the gazette notification dated 12.07.2018 has fixed the date for determination of the land value as the date of 4(1) notification and not on 01.04.2014. On what grounds the gazette notification dated 12.07.2018 of the puducherry goverment can be quashed. please quote any supreme court judgement.
Asked 6 years ago in Civil Law

First answer received in 30 minutes.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

5 Answers

principal Act was passed in 2013 to ensure that human dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution is maintained even in the case of acquisition and requisition of property

 

2) The amendments that the Pondicherry Government wished to implement  would dilute the purpose of the Act. 

 

3)Since ‘acquisition and requisitioning of property’ is under entry 42 in List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution, several states have passed amendments. 

 

4)the amendment reducing compensation is not 

 

necessarily in conformity with the Act.and is liable to be struck down 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
99819 Answers
8147 Consultations

Notification is violating the central act, shall be declare void by court.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
23083 Answers
31 Consultations

You can approach the high court for quashing the same. 

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
34545 Answers
249 Consultations

Go through the citation GNOIDA V/S Savitri Mohan and others decided by the Hon'ble SC dated:29.06.2016.

Koshal Kumar Vatsa
Advocate, Gurgaon
2282 Answers
3 Consultations

Dear client 

A notification which violates the basic purpose of a central act is null and void as per constitution of India.

You can file a writ petition challenging the amendment of state govt. Which violates the basic structure of the act and decreases basic compensation for affected families. 

Mohit Kapoor
Advocate, Rohtak
10686 Answers
7 Consultations

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer