The doctrine of prospective repeal was borrowed from the American judicial system. It clarifies that if a decision taken in a particular case was effective only in the future and would not have retroactive effect on previous decisions. If an arbitral award has been rendered and the majority of the immovable property has not been transferred to the account of the beneficiaries, all beneficiaries named in the application for acquisition in accordance with section 4 of the said Law on Land Acquisition shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Law. In this article, we examine whether the removal of a precedent on the basis of a change in the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 law on the acquisition of land by a wider chamber could lead to a reopening of cases that have already been decided and final. On the other hand, section 24 § 2 provides that if compensation has been awarded under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the procedure for acquiring the land is deemed void under the 1894 Act. “If the award was made within the five-year period without the court`s interim injunction period, the proceedings under section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act will continue under the 1894 Act as if they had not been set aside,” he said. `The provisions of Article 24(2), which provide for the limitation period for prosecution, shall apply where, as a result of their inaction, the authorities have not taken possession of a land acquisition procedure pending before the competent authority on 1 January and have not paid compensation five years or more before the entry into force of the 2013 Law. 2014,” the bank said. The judgment also addresses the fact that there is an excess of litigation related to land acquisition procedures.
Justice Mishra clarified that landowners cannot use section 24(2) to resume completed LA-Act proceedings. It found that Article 24(2) `does not constitute a new means of challenging the legality of a completed procedure`. Article 24(2) only applies to ongoing proceedings if the award was made at least five years before the entry into force of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that disputes over the acquisition of land and the payment of fair compensation to owners under the 2013 law cannot be reopened if court proceedings were completed before January 1, 2014. As described above, Article 24 (2) states that the procedure for acquiring land under the LA Act may lapse if the State fails to pay the beneficiary landowners: “if. The indemnity has not been paid, this procedure is deemed to be time-barred. However, the provision does not specify exactly what such a payment entails. Lawyers representing landowners` interests have argued that payment requires either full payment to a landowner or a bond in the competent courts (if the payment is disputed). In particular, in Union of India v Ranbir Singh Rathaur, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court`s view that the review of that court`s previous orders was “inadmissible” and that the High Court`s approach to reopening the case was “wrong” and that the issue of upholding the applications was of paramount importance. In particular, the Court had to rule on the correct interpretation of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in conjunction with various provisions of the Law on Legal Aid (LA). Article 24 (2) stipulates that land acquisition proceedings under the Land Assistance Act lapse if the State has not yet physically taken possession of the land “or has not paid compensation to landowners. The European Union argued that that `or` should be interpreted as a conjunction, that is to say, `and`. In other words, it argued that only if both conditions were met could a land acquisition become obsolete.
There have been many cases where the courts have clarified that if a settlement has been reached between the parties, the same parties cannot reopen the case because of a subsequent change in the legal situation that is not expressly retroactive. I have a question about what would happen if land were acquired under Uttar Pradesh Karar Niyamawali in 1997, under which, in accordance with its clearly written payment within three months in the event of a dispute, compensation must be filed in court, but in case of dispute arising after two years when the farmer appealed to the Supreme Court, then filed compensation in court, but not to Farin offer again, so please advise this that I can send you the No case, Sir The question that arose was whether the reservation should be read as part of paragraph (2)(b) or as a whole of Article 24. That would determine how the Court would interpret the reservation itself and the other paragraphs of article 24. A more technical question that arises is that of the scope of the reservation formulated in article 24. The reservation is at the end of § 24 in accordance with paragraph 2, letter b. Essentially, it provides a mechanism by which landowners can seek compensation under the 2013 Act if the state has filed compensation with the majority of other beneficiaries (landowners) in a land acquisition proceeding under the LA. Section 24 of the 2013 Act provides for the retroactive application of the 2013 Act to ongoing procurement procedures under the 1894 Act. Article 24(1) provides that, in the case of an ongoing land acquisition procedure, if compensation was not lifted under the 1894 Act, landowners would be entitled to the compensation required by the 2013 Act. The question that ultimately arises is whether the doctrine of finality will become causality according to the Indore Development Authority: can cases where rights are already frozen be reopened? In my view, a reopening of the cases decided will certainly lead to an anomaly in the established principle of law.