Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Appeal against – As the possession was taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013

Jan 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUSHILA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation and therefore the same was lying unpaid – Therefore, unless and until the right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition

Jan 17, 2023 sclaw

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

Land Acquisition

HELD there may be an illegal residential colony , therefore, it cannot be believed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original writ petitioners are in possession of the land in question and/or at the relevant time possession was not taken. Following (2020) 8 SCC 129 in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. Writs dismissed

Dec 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Land Acquisition

Compensation – Claimants shall not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition – High Court awarding compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.yard is unsustainable and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.yard.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. OMVIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Disagree view taken by the High Court that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that though the possession of the subject lands has been taken over but the compensation in respect of the subject lands has not been tendered.

Dec 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. CHANDERMAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of compensation are required to be satisfied – If one of the conditions is not satisfied, the acquisition proceedings are not deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Dec 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 overruled subsequently by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Appeal allowed HC order set aside

Dec 11, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH EAST) — Appellant Vs. DHARAMVIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not actually paid to the land owners- Appeal allowed

Dec 11, 2022 sclaw

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

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw