Supreme Court of India Judgements

47195 Judgements hosted as on 25/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Twin conditions – For the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

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

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 25 – Determination of compensation – the sale deed is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

Docid # IndLawLib/1602681   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SATPAL AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAKEEL AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. MANISH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. NARENDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD – nothing is on record to show that the writ petitioners were praying and/or a grievance was made by the original landowners with respect to nonpayment of compensation and that the possession of the land in question was stated to be taken in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama – High Court has error in declared that the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJESH DUA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

When the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the DDA and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and therefore there was no question of tendering any compensation to him

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. SHYAMO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition and Development — Public Purpose De-reservation — Subject land originally earmarked for High School was de-reserved by competent authority due to insufficient area; subsequent sale to private individuals was upheld by civil courts and its finality was not challenged.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 19 — Criminal Contempt — Scandalising the court — An advocate’s public allegations against a sitting judge, made via a press conference and repeated in court applications, can constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the court, lowering its authority, and interfering with judicial proceedings — Such conduct is unbecoming of a legal professional and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Service

Recruitment Rules and Advertisement — Essential Qualifications — Work Experience — In absence of a specific rule or advertisement provision, a recruiting agency cannot relax essential eligibility criteria by treating a higher qualification as a replacement for a mandatory essential qualification — A preference for a higher qualification operates only for eligible and meritorious candidates and does not override or supplant the primary requirement of essential eligibility.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Relief of back wages and regularisation — Employee illegally terminated, ordered reinstatement with back wages by Labour Commissioner and Industrial Court — Employer challenged, but interim order for back wages deposit was made and employee reinstated as daily wager — Employee sought regularisation after completing 180 days of service, granted by Industrial Court from the date of 180 days completion as per settlement clause — Employer failed to comply timely, only regularising employee on a sanctioned post after many years, imposing new conditions contrary to prior orders — Supreme Court held that employer cannot impose new conditions limiting regularisation contrary to earlier unchallenged orders and settlement terms, and reversed High Court’s decision setting aside back wages order.

Apr 25, 2026 sclaw