Welcome back to Caseon!
Log in today and discover expertly curated legal audios and how our AI-powered, tailor-made responses can empower you to navigate the complexities of your case.
Stay ahead of the curve—don’t miss out on the insights that could transform your legal practice!
As per case facts, petitioners, owners of galas in Godown L1, challenged NHAI's partial acquisition of the building for an expressway. They became aware of the acquisition award and demolition
...plans two years later. Petitioners invoked Section 94 of the Act of 2013, seeking acquisition of the entire building, and claimed compensation under the Highways Act, asserting their property rights. The question arose whether Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is applicable to acquisitions under the Highways Act, given the specific exceptions in Section 105 and a Central Government Notification. Finally, the Court ruled that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not applicable to Highways Act acquisitions, as the Notification only extended specific compensation and rehabilitation provisions. However, petitioners can claim adverse effects on their business and user rights to the competent authority, without halting demolition.
Bench
Applied Acts & Sections
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
Source & Integrity Notice
This is a faithful reproduction of the official record from the e-Courts Services portal, extracted for research.
To ensure "Contextual Integrity," all AI insights must be cross-referenced with the official PDF,
which remains the sole authoritative version for judicial purposes.
This platform provides research aids, not legal advice; verify all content against the official Court Registry before legal use.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....