Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Inl. by ACI 68 of 1984. w.e.( 24·9·19&4. Sub. b 1894 es and pr::oduC'lion ofdfKumenls :Ior shall have power to summon es interested or any of them. and 5, and (so far as may be ) in the a civil cour! under the or alter its decree made under n made under Section 26(2), the nistakc under section I3·A oflhc nl lack ofjurisdiction and devoid fits under the amended provisions. CC 3/6: /995f1JJT581: /995(2) ollector shall be guided by It.e Ie award is made by the Collector leT by way ofenquiry orotherwise) ety orallY finding or order passed ~h order or issue such direction in 5S or issue any order or direction :m a reasonable apportunity of II, he may take possession ofthe lent. free from all encumbrances. >rding 10 proj'Oscd scheme for Jenging the acquisition ofthe land 1C ground ofdelay and laches. No wscheme of acquisition and the 'tllion filed thereafter challenging ground of laches. The High Court : Constititution. to quash the noti· It It should be exercised laking all llion of Greater Bombay \'. Th~ 1996 (8) JT 16.. 199M7} Supreme CC 398' /996/31 SO 186. The Land AcquiSition Act, 1894 Acqusition of land and payment of compensation - Where notification was issued between 1959 and 1965 and declaration under Section 6 made between 1966 and 1969 and the award made in the years 198()"81 and 1983 and the compensation worked out on the basis ofnotification under Section 4 and the proceddings remained pending due to the pendency of Aflatoom case but even thereafter no steps were taken till 1980though the Aflatoomcase was decided in 1974. In such circumstances any amount detennined as market value with reference to the date of issuance of notification, cannot be held to be the compliance of mandatory direction regarding payment of value of the land so acquired. From reading Scctionll it is clcar that the said section neither validate any pending acquisition nor it condones any delay which has already been occured Section Il·A introduces a statutory mandate to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 and provides that ifno award is made within that period the-entire proceedings would lapse. There was no justification for causing delay after the judgement of the Court in Aflatoom case (1975(4) SCC 285). Therefore, the reasonable time for making the award was two years after which it would be unreasonable.- Ram Chand v. Union of Indian and Shri yeti Prakash v Union o/India. 1993(5) JT 465: 1994(1) SCC 44.. 1993(3) Scale 906: 1994(/) UJ (SC) 21.