Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition — Setting aside of award — Grounds for — Excessive compensation, unjust enrichment, collusion with officials — Impact on entire acquisition — Held, setting aside an award for excessive compensation due to unjust enrichment and collusion does not automatically invalidate the entire acquisition award concerning all landowners.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 86 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRAJ JAIN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, JAGDALPUR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 — Section 3(3A) — Amendment Act, 2020 — Retrospective validation of actions — Power to grant license includes power to modify, suspend, revoke, or delicense — Delicensing of land for commercial purposes after it was initially licensed for residential use is permissible.

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 77 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ SINGH GEHLOT AND OTHERS Vs. AMITABHA SEN AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 18 — Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — Compensation — Enhancement of — While determining market value, the highest bona fide sale exemplar should generally be considered, not an average of varying sale prices, unless prices have only marginal variations — Averaging of sale instances with significantly different prices is impermissible. Section 51A — Evidence — Certified copies of sale deeds have presumptive value as evidence of the transaction recorded therein — If the state does not produce rebuttal evidence, these documents can be relied upon to determine market value.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 900 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013— Finality of Determinations— The Court established a precedent that once determinations regarding compensation and entitlements have been adjudicated and approved by the Court, they cannot be reopened by the Claims Commission based on changes in policy— This applies specifically to the ten villages for which reports were previously finalised— This means that the Commission should not re-evaluate or re-adjudicate cases that have already been settled.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 22 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MATHIAS ORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2) — Interpretation of — The court clarified that for land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both conditions of non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be fulfilled.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 456 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. TEJPAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) – Determination of fair market value – The appellants, land losers, sought enhanced compensation for their lands acquired for the Hippargi Barrage project in 2007 – The initial compensation was Rs.1,31,263 per acre – The main issue was the determination of fair market value for the acquired irrigated lands – The appellants argued for compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000 per acre, citing a precedent where the High Court awarded this amount for similar lands – The respondent contended that the High Court erred in interpreting an affidavit related to a different acquisition in 2009, where Rs.5,00,000 per acre was awarded – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, fixing the market value at Rs.4,50,000 per acre with all statutory benefits, but upheld the denial of interest for delay in filing cross-objections – The Court considered the market value agreed upon for lands acquired in 2004-2005 and applied an escalation rate to determine the compensation for the appellants’ lands acquired in 2007 – The appeals were allowed in part, setting a new compensation rate, with the order not to be treated as a precedent.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 386 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA NERAVARI NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

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

2024 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw