It has been observed by the Apex Court of India that there are no rules that in all land acquisition cases that the owner must be given the alternative site or flat. It has been observed in the previous writ petition, which was related to the acquisition of the project of MRTS (Railways), the Madras High Court issued a direction to the state government and Tamil Nadu Housing Board to provide alternative land to the landowners as a special category to the displaced persons.
The state asserted in appeal that in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Versus Dr Vasanthi Veerasekaean, the nature of the high court order was an extra-legal concession by way of an allotment of an alternative sight in lieu of the acquired lands; any such obligation on the state under the 1894 act, or any kind of policy in force pertaining to the project of MRTS to be implemented by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India.
After agreeing, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that in the absence of any such scheme, the High Court could not have issued such kind of orders to the State. Setting aside the Judgement of the High Court, the bench distinguished some of its previous judgements which were relied upon by the High Court to issue such discretion. For example, in the case of Bharat Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, the land was acquired for development and utilization for industrial purpose.
Tags : #Legal