news details |
|
|
| Delay of 20 yrs in land acquisition proceedings | | HC directs PDD secy to handover case to VO | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 9: Following a delay of 20 years in land acquisition proceedings, high court judge Alok Aradhe has directed the power development department (PDD) secretary to handover the case investigation to vigilance organisation to enquire into inaction on the part of delinquent officers as to why there has been such a long delay in the matter.
"Despite issuance of declaration on April 29, 1994, 20 years have passed, but no steps have been taken to conclude the land acquisition proceedings. Inaction on the part of state government officers is a matter of grave concern as it burdens the public exchequer. They have slept over the matter without any cogent reason," he said.
The court deemed it appropriate to direct the PDD secretary to handover the investigation to VO. "The VO is directed to conclude the inquiry within six months. The competent authority shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers depending on the result of enquiry in accordance with law. Needless to state that if the construction of Data Recovery Center has been done by the respondents illegally without obtaining any sanction from the Jammu Municipal Corporation, it shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law in respect of the construction which has been raised by respondents," the court said, directing respondents to conclude the proceedings under the Act within a period of four months from today positively and to file copy of the award before this court.
In addition, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek compensation before the appropriate forum for illegal use of his property as the right to hold the property is a fundamental right, Justice Aradhe said.
The court directive came in a petition filed by the owner of 5.6 kanals of land under khasra No 286/12 and 1.9 kanals of land under khasra No 37/12.
Justice Aradhe, after hearing both the sides, observed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 26.02.1993. In objections filed in OWP No 697/12, the respondents had stated in unequivocal terms that notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on April 29, 1994, however, the aforesaid notification had not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner had also not pleaded in the petition that no enquiry as envisaged under Section 5(A) of the Act had been held. Therefore, the contention that the notification under Section 6 of the Act had not been issued and inquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act had not been held could not be accepted specially in the absence of any rebuttal on behalf of the petitioner in this regard and in the absence of challenge to the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the court observed. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
