Find a Lawyer

QAISER HUSSAIN versus L.M.C.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 17 and 18 issued notice of jurisdiction for illegal land acquisition proceedings; no further steps were taken to complete the acquisition process, including award by the Collector. Also referred to as the owner of. Recovery of vacant occupancy and property recovery and compensation for their possession under the search of the municipal corporation questioned courts has been obtained under notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894 and there is no claim for release of property. Has been done The lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was based on the misconception that with the issuance of a notification only under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition of the land was completed and the plaintiffs (owners) had their right in the land. Ownership rights have been deprecated. Question and the municipal corporation (the defendant) became the owner of the land for which it was acquired and could occupy it, such as the municipality before issuing a notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The deposit of money by the corporation to the Commissioner cannot be considered to be a payment to the owner of the land which was to be determined by the Collector's Award. Such stockholder has not been barred from the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs as the landowner can acquire in the municipal corporation only after the award has been declared or taken over by the collector. No award under section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was not delivered by the collector nor any question under section 4 of the underground Act. best advocate from Kalaswala lawyer