Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/948313/

 

In our view Section 44A prohibits transfer of land. Section 44B of the Land Acquisition Act provides for land not to be acquired under this Part except for certain purposes for private companies other than Government Companies. Sections 44A and 44B of the Land Acquisition Act are inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1962. The amendments are intended to safeguard the public interest. Therefore, Sections 44A and 44B of the Land Acquisition Act are intended to safeguard the public interest. Section 44A accordingly puts an interdict to transfer by sale, gift or lease or otherwise any acquired land without permission of the appropriate Government. "Transfer" means passage of a right from one to another. Transfer may take place in three different ways. It may be by virtue of an act done by a transferor with an intention, as in the case of a conveyance or a gift or; secondly, it may be by operation of law as in the case of forfeiture, bankruptcy, intestacy or thirdly, it may be an involuntary transfer effected through court, as in execution of a decree for either enforcing a mortgage or for recovery of money due under a simple money decree. In view of the words, "sale, gift or lease", it seems the statute contemplates a transfer inter vivos.

Policy guidelines issued by govt are binding on it

(2011) 7 SCC 493
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device

Land Acquisition - acquired for one purpose can be used for another

respondents are not barred from utilizing the land for any other purpose
than the one for which the land was required. It is well settled principle
laid down in a catena of judgments. In the case of Union of India v. Jaswant
Rai Kochhar MANU/SC/0358/1996 : (1996) 3 S.C.C. 491, it has been held that
land acquired for public purpose may be used for another purpose. Similar
view has been taken in the cases of Ravi Khullar v. Union of India
MANU/SC/1906/2007 : (2007) 5 S.C.C. 231; State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo
Deoman Rai alias kalal MANU/SC/0471/1990 : (1990) 3 S.C.C. 579; and Bhagat
Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0774/1998 : (1999) 2 S.C.C. 384

Directory or Mandatory

Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 181, this Court observed that law which creates public duties is directory but if it confers private rights it is mandatory.

4 year limitation period under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899

Girjesh Kumar Srivastava v. State, AIR 1998 All. 237, a full bench of this Hon'ble High Court has held that " In our opinion, the language of the sub-section shows that the period of four years qualifies the action which may be taken by the Collector…. The bar of limitation applies to the action which may be taken by the collector and not a reference." Therefore, it is settled law that even if petitioners were liable to be proceeded against, no action can be taken after lapse of four years. The above cited full bench decision of this Hon'ble Court was followed in Meena Khanna v. State of UP, 2005 3 AWC 2296, wherein after considering the plea of limitation, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that "in view of decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court, the entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Section 47-A of Stamp Act beyond the prescribed period of limitation is wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the authority under law. Thus the impugned order passed by respondent no.4 ad affirmed by respondent no.2 cannot sustain on this ground alone…." (emphasis supplied).

Consequences of not filing counter affidavit

2007 (25) LCD 955
AIR 1993 SC 2592
1997 (11) SCC 179
AIR 1985 SC 1019
1998 (3) SCC 112
1996 (6) SCC 342
AIR 1986 SC 638

Recovery charges

Unless actual sale happens, recovery charges are not recoverable. AIR 1983 All 234: 2002 RD 689: 2010 109 RD 148
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device