Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 14/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners.

Mar 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BANGALORE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Land Acquisition

A consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record – There may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location – remand the matter to the High Court

Mar 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. SAVITHA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Determination of compensation – HELD High Court has mechanically held that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation considering the price/sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed – Impugned orders passed by High Court are hereby quashed

Mar 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMINA DEVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Compensation – Deduction – Held, Location of the lands acquired and that part of the acquired land abuts the National Highway and at the same time, the sale instances pertain to comparatively smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands

Mar 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI PARKASH ETC ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ETC ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 19, 22, 22(b), 22(c) and 31(5) – Under the MRTP Act, in the Development Plan, the Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate Authority has to make the provisions for the public purposes mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22 and sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the MRTP Act – in the facts and circumstances of this case, when land is found to be unsuitable and unusable for the purposes for which it has been reserved, Corporation cannot be compelled to pay a huge compensation for such a useless and unsuitable land.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land – Notification – Once the very acquisition and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting orders HC not to decide appeals separately. Remanded

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SATISH KUMAR BATRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land acquisition – Compensation – Determination of market value – High Court has erred in law in holding that since the land of the sale exemplars is of irrigated agricultural land whereas the land acquired is unirrigated, is not the reasonable yardstick to determine market value of the land as the land in question is close to already developed area – Appeal allowed.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHUKAR S/O GOVINDRAO KAMBLE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…

Land Acquisition

Whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held, An application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of 1987 Act

Feb 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Appellant Vs. YUNUS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

You missed

C P C Registration Act

An unregistered agreement of sale is admissible as evidence of the contract in a specific performance suit, under the proviso to Section 49, Registration Act.

May 14, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Prosecution for obstructing public servant (S.186 IPC) requires mens rea and compliance with S.195 Cr.PC; absence renders proceedings an abuse of process.

May 14, 2025 sclaw
Constitution Contempt

Freedom of Speech and Expression — Open Justice — Subjudice Principle — Contempt of Court – Such a direction, being a form of prior restraint, must satisfy twin tests of necessity and proportionality, applicable only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of trial or proper administration of justice — Courts must be open to public observations, debates, and constructive criticism, even on subjudice matters, as open justice instills faith and checks judicial caprice

May 14, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal

Hostile witnesses — Effect — When a large number of witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turn hostile, prosecution case often collapses for want of evidence — While reasons for hostility can be varied (coercion, fear, monetary consideration, etc.), it cannot automatically lead to conviction based on prior S. 161 statements or IO’s testimony about such statements, as these are not substantive evidence — Court’s consternation at collapse of a serious case due to witness hostility cannot be a reason to convict on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, amounting to a moral conviction anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

May 13, 2025 sclaw