Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18(1) – Fixation of market value – Reference to Court – Fixation of market value in a Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 necessarily involves some guesswork – Guesswork is required to be made by adopting one of the well-recognized methods, such as the comparison method or capitalization method.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMAN — Appellant Vs. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of Land – Compensation – Suppression of material facts -appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts – They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law – Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI K. JAYARAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value/Compensation – HELD The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award – Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre – Appeal allowed.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR SOTI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (U.P.) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 5A and 17(4) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Special powers in cases of urgency – HELD On an appreciation of the evidence made available by all the parties it is open to the court to conclude that no occasion arose for resorting to the power under Section 17 (4) which indeed must be read as an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acquisition was unjustified.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) – Interpretation of -where proceedings for acquisition had been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply limited to determination of compensation. Where, however, an award had been made under the 1894 Act, clause (b) to Section 24(1) protects the vested rights of the parties (

Nov 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Enhancement of compensation – Determination of market value – Held, Land acquired for the housing project – However, at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 1/2 cent only – In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value –

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNUSAMY — Appellant Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 398…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had taken place – Appeal are partly allowed.

Oct 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination of – HELD the compensation to be awarded is (137.76/2= 69 rounded off to Rs.70 per square feet) which was the market value assessed by the Reference Court as well – Reference Court is justified in law whereas the High Court has reduced the compensation drastically without any reasonable basis – Appellant is entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square feet from the date of award by the Land Acquisition Collector.

Sep 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – Determination of market value – When the different items of property in the different survey number were acquired for the same purpose of establishing the market yard and as observed by the High Court since all the lands had the road passing beside it, a common determination of the market value was the appropriate course – Observation of High Court is justified – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 23, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  MANMOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THRU LRS. — Appellant Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE BHIKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of value of acquired land -Held, Deduction at the rate of 15% towards the development charges, it also does not call for any interference of this Court considering the fact that the land in question at the relevant time was an agricultural land. However, taking into consideration the fact that the sale instance relied upon was a quite big chunk of land and the location of the acquired land and the land was acquired for spinning mill, the High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE COTTON SPINNING MILL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw