Land acquisition Act - Old Act -vs- New Act - except file note , No award was passed nor communicated as on 31-12-2013 - mere noting file on 23-12-2013 with out communicating the same to the claimant as late as 31-12-2013 can not be considered as AWARD - Hence as per sec.24 of New Act a fresh award is to be passed and as such the alleged award said to be passed and communicated after one year is set aside - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

What is the meaning of words making of an award in
Section 24 (1) of Act 30 of 2013 and effect of non-
communication of award before 31.12.2013?

While interpreting a transitory provision, the said ratio does not
assist the respondents.
The file noting on 23.12.2013 cannot be
treated as an award made under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1894 as it is
not communicated as late as 31.12.2014.

      Further, Section 12(2) of Act 1 of 1894 mandates expeditious
communication of award.  So, to continue proceedings under Act 1
of 1894, the communication of award is necessary.  Unless and until
the rights are crystallized and accrued, the same cannot be put
against a party. Therefore, the communication of award dated
23.12.2013  through notice dated 31.12.2014 under Section 12(2) of
Act 1 of 1894, is illegal and contrary to Section 24 (1) of Act 30 of
2013.  The same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Consequently, it is further held that the determination of
compensation is under Act 30 of 2013 by passing a fresh award.- 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS