Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Land Acquisition

“Uniform Compensation, Individual Scrutiny: Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Land Acquired by KNNL”

Bysclaw

Mar 22, 2024

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

By sclaw

Related Post

Land Acquisition Limitation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – The court emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stating that litigation must have an end and cannot be prolonged indefinitely – The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the discretionary nature of Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Special Leave Petition due to the petitioners’ negligence and lack of due diligence in pursuing the matter.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Land Acquisition

In the facts and circumstances noted and more particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merits – Matter is remitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw
Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Court for awarding annual increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered – In the present case would be best determined if apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect – This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12% – But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order – In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper.

Oct 24, 2023 sclaw

You missed

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree –Property Dispute – Suit for specific performance – A compromise was reached in 1978, and a decree was passed in 1979 – The main issue is the executability of the 1979 decree, challenged by the respondents claiming it to be a nullity and questioning the jurisdiction – The petitioner, as the decree holder, argues that the decree is executable and that the objections under Section 47 CPC by the respondents are not maintainable – The respondents contend that the decree is without jurisdiction and a nullity, and that the property was jointly owned, thus the compromise with only one defendant is invalid – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Executing Court’s order, rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC – The Court found that the property was solely owned by Defendant No. 1, and the compromise was valid – The procedural requirements were met, and the objections by the respondents were an abuse of the legal process – The Court reasoned that the compromise was properly recorded and verified, fulfilling the requirements of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC, and the execution of the decree was contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions by Defendant No. 1. – The Supreme Court concluded that the Executing Court was correct in rejecting the objections and that the decree dated 09.05.1979 was based on a valid compromise – The opinion by Justice Vikram Nath emphasized the validity of the compromise and the decree, and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process by the respondents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail – The complainant’s son was allegedly murdered by the accused (along with others) in a property dispute – Five accused were convicted of murder and other charges, with two others acquitted – The High Court granted bail to three accused (‘A’, ‘C’, and ‘R’) considering their long incarceration and bail granted to two co-accused. – The complainant argues against bail, fearing threats from the accused who are “dreaded criminals.” – He highlights that the High Court wasn’t aware that two accused (‘C’ and ‘R’) allegedly killed a police officer while on trial, further demonstrating their violent nature – The Court acknowledges the oversight of not presenting details about the police officer’s murder to the High Court – The Court cancels bail for ‘C’ and ‘R’ due to their subsequent criminal act – The Court upholds bail for ‘A’ (not involved in the police officer’s murder).

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B – Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 – Section 7 – Appeal against Grant of Bail by High Court – The main issue is the appropriateness of the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused – The petitioner argues against bail due to the serious nature of the crime, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the influence of the accused over witnesses – The respondents claim they have cooperated with the trial and allegations of threatening witnesses are false – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders, citing the seriousness of the crime and the conduct of the accused – The Court found that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judiciously in granting bail – The Court referenced previous cases outlining the principles for bail consideration, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the potential for influencing witnesses – The Supreme Court concluded that the accused should be taken into custody and the trial should be concluded expeditiously – The judgment emphasizes the importance of a careful and principled approach to granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes and potential witness tampering.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw