Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – Percentage of deduction or the extent of area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the courts having regard to the size, shape, situation, user etc. of the lands acquired – It is essentially a kind of guess work the courts are expected to undertake – A cut of one third was required to be imposed on the amount of compensation awarded by it

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  MALA ETC. ETC. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta,…

HELD appellants cannot be worse off than the other affected landowners of the same village, i.e., Morlipura, who have been paid more compensation. In a welfare state like ours where we have promised all the citizens social and economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants are meted equal treatment as the other affected landowners

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Once the acquisition under Land Acquisition Act 1894 continues to be valid, the claimant is disentitled to claim compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was not applicable to the acquisition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. JAGAN SINGH & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

National Highways Authority Act, 1956 – Section 3H – When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so – Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Acquisition proceedings Lapse by High Court – Possession could not be taken due to stay order/pending litigation, the matters are required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act HELD one of the conditions being satisfied, the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. ANITA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – if one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not met, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Appeal against – possession of the land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) — Appellant Vs. HARI CHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.