Supreme Court of India Judgements

46695 Judgements hosted as on 19/01/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

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 :…

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J.N. PURI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. THAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA (DEAD) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1959 – Section 52(2) – Challenge to acquisition – Failure to serve notice under Section 52(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1959 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Maintainability – Difference of opinions and the distinguishing judgments – Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to a larger Bench.

Oct 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER — Appellant Vs. GORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

You missed

C P C

High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC without first formulating a substantial question of law

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

When a higher court’s decree is issued, the lower court’s decree merges into it, and any time stipulations in the lower court’s decree do not automatically revive upon the higher court’s judgment

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw
Service

Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list

Jan 17, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw