Supreme Court of India Judgements

46550 Judgements hosted as on 16/07/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

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,…

Land Acquisition Limitation

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.

Oct 18, 2023 sclaw

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

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw