Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

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

Aug 18, 2023 sclaw

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,…

Land Acquisition

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

Aug 17, 2023 sclaw

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.…

Land Acquisition

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.

Jul 20, 2023 sclaw

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

Land Acquisition National Highways Authority Act

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.

Jul 19, 2023 sclaw

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

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.

May 28, 2023 sclaw

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,…

Land Acquisition

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.

May 9, 2023 sclaw

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…

Land Acquisition

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.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

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…

Land Acquisition

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.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

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…

Land Acquisition

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.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

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.…

Land Acquisition

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.

Apr 23, 2023 sclaw

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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw