Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -HELD High Court erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48(1) – Acquisition – Housing and development – Release of land – A notification under Section 48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing, to the original land owners – If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under Section 48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which in this case is the Parishad, and not the land owners – Therefore, This Court can understand if the Parishad makes out a grievance that their rights were taken away by the notification under Section 48(1)

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

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…

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