Category: 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.

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 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.

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 :…

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

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 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.

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 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.

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,…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Condonation of delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court’s decision to condone the delay does not suffer from any error warranting interference, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – A court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below – An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.