Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 34—The National Highways Authority of India appeals a District Judge's decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award regarding land acquisition for highway widening—The Arbitrator enhanced compensation from agricultural to commercial rates based on the land's potential for commercial use, despite its agricultural classification—The appellant contends the award lacks proper reasoning and exceeds statutory provisions—The respondent counters, emphasizing the land's commercial potential due to its location and size—The District Judge upheld the Arbitrator's decision, deeming it reasonable and fair—The appellant's appeal argues against the lack of reasoning and improper enhanceme...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4(1) and 6—Acquisition of lands—Appellants are dissatisfied with the High Court of Orissa's judgment that quashed land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a university project by the Vedanta Foundation—The High Court found that the acquisition was initiated based on misrepresentation and fraud and violated statutory provisions—The judgment directed restoration of land possession to landowners and refund of compensation—The appellants argue that the High Court erred in quashing the entire acquisition, given that objections under Section 5A were minimal, and they request the acquisition be upheld to facilitate the university project. ...

Acquisition of land—Reduction of compensation—Appeal against—Cases, the appellants were challenging the reduction of compensation for land acquisition from Rs. 4,61,250 per acre to Rs. 4,15,000 per acre—The Reference Court had initially awarded compensation at the higher rate, but the High Court reduced it based on a previous judgment—The appellants argued that the High Court's decision was based on a previous judgment that had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine (without detailed consideration), and therefore, it should not be considered binding precedent—The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants and noted that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine does not amount to an affirmation of the High Court's view—Unless a judgment is affirmed with a reasoned decision, ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Acquisition of land—State of Haryana acquired land for development purposes in 1987—Most of it was released except for small plots belonging to the original writ petitioners—The High Court ordered the release of these lands—The State's arbitrary land release practices were criticized—The Supreme Court upheld the release of the small plots but allowed appeals regarding land used for sewage lines and road widening. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Lapse of acquisition proceedings—The High Court relied on a previous case which was overruled by a Constitution Bench—The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court judgment, and cited the law laid down in the Indore Development Authority case. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Acquisition of land—Compensation—was observed that claimants should not be entitled to receive the same compensation as awarded for lands acquired after a period of five years from the date of acquisition—The High Court's decision to grant compensation at the rate of Rs.297 per square yard was deemed unsustainable. Instead, it was held that the original claimants should be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.120 per square yard. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 17(1), 18, 28, 4(1) and 6—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 152—Acquisition of land—For purpose of “rehabilitation of displaced persons” of Villages—Which came under  submergence due increase of height of Sardar Sarovar Dam—LAO passed award—Assessed market value—Irrigated Land—Rs. 47,165 per hectare—Unirrigated Land—Rs. 29,621 per hectare—Solatium 30%—Additional compensation 12%—Landowners being dissatisfied with amount of compensation—Sought Reference—Reference Court after determining market value of irrigated land to tune of Rs. 36,62,400 per hectare and unirrigated land to tune of Rs. 24,41,600 per hectare—On the basis of sale deed filed as explains enhanced compensation al...

Acquisition of land—Development charge—Landowners, whose land was utilized for development four decades ago, should not be obligated to pay a development charge for a project that has already been completed. It is unreasonable to impose development charges on them, especially for a portion of land for which they have not received compensation for many years. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Acquisition of land—When the acquisition is solely for the purpose of excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis of the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land is to be mined and used and no further developmental activity is required - High Court has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the developmental activities—Appeal allowed in part. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Acquisition of land—The provided text appears to be a legal summary related to the acquisition of land for the sole purpose of coal excavation—Here's a breakdown of the key points in the summary: Purpose of Land Acquisition: The land in question has been acquired solely for the purpose of coal excavation—The acquisition is based on estimates of coal reserves identified in the area, and the entire acquired land is intended to be used for coal mining—No further developmental activities are required on the land. High Court's Error: The High Court made an error in its judgment related to this land acquisition—Specifically, it erred by deducting one-third of the compensation amount for developmental activities. Partial Appeal ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)— Lapse of acquisition proceedings—States that if the award has not been made as of January 1, 2014, which is the commencement date of the 2013 Act, then there is no lapse of the proceedings. In such cases, compensation must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act—However, if an award has been passed within the five-year window period, excluding any time covered by an interim court order, then the proceedings shall continue as per Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, treating it as if the 1894 Act (the old land acquisition law) has not been repealed—It's crucial to understand that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be considered an integral part of S...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Acquisition of land—Compensation Determination—In the case of land acquisition, compensation determination is a crucial factor. In this particular case, the majority of the sale deeds presented by the landowners date back significantly before the Section 4 notification, spanning from 1992 to 1994. Some sale deeds even post-date the Section 4 notification. However, only a few sale deeds are in close proximity to the Section 4 notification—These proximate sale deeds pertain to smaller land areas, and their prices also vary. Thus, it is not prudent to solely rely on these sale deeds that are in close proximity to the Section 4 notification for compensation determination. Consequently, the High Court's judgment and order, which restored the awards issued by the Land Acquis...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24— Jammu and Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990—Sections 4, 6, 9, 9-A and 17—Acquisition of Land - Compensation— Determination of—The High Court erred in directing compensation payment under the 2013 Act. The matter is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration based on other grounds challenging the land acquisition under the State Act of 1990. ...

Acquisition of land—Compensation—Including interest on the increased compensation amount, due to a significant delay in filing the initial appeals, from the date when the High Court judgments and orders were issued until the present appeals (special leave petitions) have been submitted to this Court. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 28A—Land Acquisition—Delay in Filing Appeals—Compensation Enhancement—In accordance with Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Claimants in a similar situation whose lands have been acquired under the same notifications are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equivalent to other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notificationsConsidering the provisions of Section 28A, this Court has —chosen to condone the delay in filing the appeals—However, this condonation is accompanied by a condition: the denial of statutory benefits and interest on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the High Court's judgment until the respective appeals are filed before this Court. This condition is imposed in the interest of...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, and 18 - Land Acquisition - Compensation Enhancement - Market Value Determination - Relevance of determining the market value subsequent to the notification for land acquired more than two years earlier - Held, While it can be presumed that there was an appreciation in price, the market value of land acquired earlier cannot be assessed by merely applying a deduction from the market value determined for land acquired through a subsequent notification. By the time of the later notification, development activities had already occurred due to the earlier notifications. Hence, it's not merely the percentage of increase but the development arising from the earlier notifications that affects the market value. Therefore, the market value of the land cannot be solely based on the land acquired throug...

Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 14—Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983—Sections 6 and 10—Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987—Rule 4(4)—Cancellation of patta—central issue pertained to the cancellation of a patta—The first respondent, who was the landowner, put forth an argument before the Division Bench of the High Court. They contended that on February 26, 1964, the disputed land had been acquired by the State Government and subsequently assigned to WSIL. However, in the same year, the land was re-conveyed to the State Government. It was imperative to note that the first respondent had acknowledged the land's acquisition by the State Government. Consequently, this acceptance meant that the first respondent no longer retained a valid interest in the land. Consequently, they lacked ...

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, after the subject land was included in a notification in 1976, the appellant had no further rights after their lease ended in 1977. Claims for a 25-year lease and damages were unfounded, as there was no evidence of State prevention from land access. The High Court left the question of limitation unanswered, but this Court found the claims in this suit differed from the earlier proceeding, thus denying the appellant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petition is dismissed. ...

The dispute involves the land value for acquired land—The court offered two options to the claimants: fixing values or returning unutilized land—The second option is chosen—Appeals disposed accordingly. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11, Section 12, Section 12(2), Section 16, Section 4, Section 48, Section 48(1), Section 6—Appeal challenges a judgment by the High Court of Bombay in a land acquisition case—The court examines the legality of the order passed by the Revenue Minister to release acquired land from acquisition—It finds that the land was already in possession of the state and that the order was not legally valid—The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs—25,000 to be paid by respondent No.1 to the appellant. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 41 Rule 25— Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11, Section 11(1), Section 12, Section 12(2), Section 18, Section 18(1), Section 18(2)(b), Section 6— Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 126, Section 126(4)— Supreme Court granted permission to appeal against a 2014 judgment by the Bombay High Court— The case involved the timeliness of a compensation reference for land acquisition— The Supreme Court ruled that the notice of the award was ineffective without the accompanying award copy, thus the reference was not time-barred, remanding the case for further consideration— Multiple related appeals were also disposed of. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18—Acquisition of land—Computation of compensation—Acquisition cases under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation should reflect the value to the owner giving up the property, not the new owner acquiring it—Fair compensation is the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, considering the land's current use and unique features—The concept of "public purpose" is not precisely defined but should serve the general interest of the community, not private individuals, and is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure it genuinely benefits the public rather than individuals or groups. ...

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Section 3—Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 6—concern a case involving the acquisition of land in Haryana, India—The landowners filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition, alleging fraudulent actions by the government and private builders—The High Court dismissed the petition, citing delay and laches—The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal and ordered a CBI investigation—The appellants argue that licenses granted to builders during the acquisition process were an abuse of power—The case highlights alleged misconduct in land acquisition and subsequent licensing processes. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, encompassing Sections 18, 28-A, and 54, the process of land acquisition involves the enhancement of compensation. It's crucial to understand that determining the fair market value of the acquired land isn't a solitary assessment based on one factor alone. Instead, it necessitates a comprehensive consideration of various influencing factors.-To arrive at a just compensation, these factors must be substantiated with ample and credible evidence. Courts bear the responsibility of earnestly ascertaining the fair market rate, considering all relevant aspects of the case. Both landowners and the State must present proper and substantial evidence, enabling the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and equitable fair market rate applicable at the time of land acquisition. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4Appeals pertain to a case involving the acquisition of land in Karnataka—High Court's judgment ordered the reconsideration of de—acquisition of land, which had been previously acquired and awarded to another party by the Bangalore Development Authority—Supreme Court found that the de—Acquisition was illegal and violated a previous Supreme Court judgment, leading to the cancellation of the de—acquisition notification—Appeals were allowed, with costs imposed on the party seeking de—acquisition—Liability for interest ceased after the deposit of compensation with the court. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Belagavi Urban Development Authority (BUDA) appealed a High Court decision regarding land acquisition—The court directed the impleadment of BUDA as respondent no. 4 in the writ petitions and set aside the previous orders—The case was remitted to the single judge for fresh consideration after obtaining BUDA's reply within eight weeks. All contentions were left open for further consideration—The appeals were allowed to this extent. ...

Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - Section 4(1)—Acquisition of land—Award of compensation—Case involves an appeal regarding compensation for land acquisition—The appellants claimed that they should receive the same rate of compensation as other landowners in nearby villages whose land was acquired for the same purpose—The court agreed and granted them enhanced compensation at a rate of Rs. 4,00,000 per Kanal, setting aside the lower court's decision. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2) A case involving land acquisition, the appellant is granted one year to start the acquisition process anew, as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If they fail to issue a new acquisition notification within this timeframe, they must return the land's physical possession to the original owner, as ruled by the court. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Acquisition of land—Claimants appealed against the High Court's refusal to increase compensation for their lands acquired for the Ranjit Sagar Dam construction, dating back to 1987—The Land Acquisition Officer classified the land into eight categories based on its nature—The Court found the High Court's stance unjustifiable, as it had not ruled on the additional evidence presented. Consequently, the judgments were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after addressing the appellants' applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC—The appeal was disposed of. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4(1)—Acquisition of land—Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, the State filed appeals challenging the awarded compensation—The Court, after reviewing a 492-day delay affidavit, decided to condone the delay in the interest of justice. However, it directed the State Government to take legal action against the responsible officers for the delay—The cases are now sent back to the High Court for a fresh review on their merits. ...

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC—Section 120(B), Section 406, Section 409—Acquisition of land—The appeal challenges a High Court decision to not quash a criminal case. The case involved the registration of an FIR and a charge sheet based on certain documents. The High Court found several infirmities in the case. However, the Supreme Court concluded that when false and fraudulent documents lead to a claim and compensation in a land acquisition matter, it affects the state's interest and can't be considered a purely civil dispute. Thus, the criminal proceedings were not quashed. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23, Section 4—Acquisition of land—Appeals, landowners are challenging a common order issued by the High Court of Delhi—This order denied their claim for enhanced compensation for the acquisition of their land in a village—During the proceedings, a witness stated in their cross-examination that the land developed in the village for residential-cum-commercial purposes was located at a considerable distance from the acquired land and far away from the main road—After reviewing and considering this witness's evidence, the court concluded that it did not support the appellants' claim for higher compensation—The court held that it cannot find the High Court's conclusion, which denied the landowners a higher rate of compensation, to be so clearly and obvious...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 11, Section 11, Section 12, Section 12, Section 16, Section 31, Section 31, Section 34—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24, Section 24(2)—Acquisition of land—Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for the planned development of Delhi, citing public purpose for the acquisition—The court emphasized that there is no fixed rule defining the act that constitutes taking possession of the acquired land—However, for land acquisition proceedings to be considered initiated, physical possession of the land must be taken or compensation must be paid—The court also clarified that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to persons interested can only be iss...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 6—Acquisition of the land—High Court upheld the land acquisition proceedings, stating that the Section 6 Declaration (under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) was filed within the prescribed time—However, an affidavit was filed by the Principal Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi Development Authority, indicating that due to intervening developments, it was not feasible to continue with the acquisition—As a result, the acquisition proceedings for the appellant's land were set aside, and the land was denotified—The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ...

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894— Section 4—Acquisition of land—The challenge pertains to a notification under the 1894 Act for land acquisition—In this case, no compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the appellants—According to the law, if compensation has not been paid, the land acquisition proceedings for that acquisition are considered lapsed, as if no acquisition occurred—When land is compulsorily acquired, it is the responsibility of the Requisitioning Authority to make the payment, and it does not require the landowner to come and receive the payment—In cases of disputes over payment recipients, the money should be deposited in court—Consequently,...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Acquisition of the land—landowners, who are the claimants in a case involving the reduction of land acquisition compensation, have filed an appeal seeking a review of the High Court's judgment and order—The High Court had previously determined the compensation at a rate of Rs. 770 per square meter, which the current court finds to be unacceptable—The current court examined the materials on record, including the opinion of the Chief Architect and Town Planner, and considered the concessional rates of allotment for Infocity land—In light of this information, the current court concluded that the High Court was not justified in reversing the compensation determined by the Reference Court—Additionally, the current court found that the High Court did not adequate...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Acquisition—Brought to the court's attention an order passed in a Civil Appeal that pertains to acquisition proceedings initiated under the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—The respondents do not object to the order, as it is issued on similar terms to the order passed in the Civil Appeal, in which the state respondents were represented through legal counsel—As a result, the appeal has been disposed of. ...

Defence of India Rules, 1939—Rule 75A(1)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23(2)—Order of acquisition—Property under requisition was taken over by the Government of India, and at that time, it included a cotton mill that was under construction and consisted of various plots—In such cases, it is acknowledged that when the government acquires property leased from a private owner, it can do so under the Land Acquisition Act—Even if the government is paying lease rent to the private owner, the property acquired is valued at market value, and solatium is paid on it—On the surface, there don't seem to be any significant and substantial distinctions between acquisitions under these two statutes. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4(1) and 17(1)—Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966—Sections 146 (ii) and 164—Acquisition of land—Failure to award compensation as mandated by Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act constitutes a deliberate omission in fulfilling the statutory duty by the Collector—The licensee falls within the category of tenants specified under Section 161 of the Regulation, 1966—This tenancy is perpetual in nature—Even if the land is entirely vested with the State, it is still possible to create the interests of private individuals by executing a conveyance in their favor—A review petition has been dismissed. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17, Section 17(1), Section 4, Section 6—Special Leave Petition (SLP) No—CC 2173 of 2015, the petitioner contested the acquisition of their land, challenging a High Court judgment from 13.03.2014, which was based on a Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj and Ors—v—State of U.P—and Ors—All related appeals, including those by landowners, were previously dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholding the Full Bench's view, and thus, the SLP was also dismissed—In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No—9029 of 2015, a similar situation occurred, where the petitioner challenged land acquisition based on a High Court judgment from 21.10.2011, which was influenced by the same Full Bench decision in the Gajraj case—As with the previous SLP, this one was also d...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 4, Section 6—Acquisition of Land—Civil Appeal Nos—7993-8034 of 2011 were brought before the court against judgments from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana—These appeals concerned the compensation for land acquired for the Guru Nanak Thermal Plant Stage III in Bathinda—The High Court had altered compensation values for various types of land in different villages—The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions except for the compensation values for land in Patti Karam Chand village, restoring the values determined by the Reference Court. ...

Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law—The High Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeals, preferably within six months, and both parties were urged to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments—No costs were awarded. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 5A, Section 5A(2), Section 6, Section 6(1), Section 6(3)—Argues that their land should not have been acquired because it already had a residential construction on it—They also claim that the government is selectively acquiring land and discriminating against them—High Court had dismissed their writ petition, but the Appellant argues that this decision goes against established principles of law regarding land acquisition—Appellant cites several cases to support their argument, emphasizing that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act provides a safeguard for landowners to object to acquisition and that the government must consider the report of the Land Acquisition Collector before making an acquisition declaration—Appellant contends that the gove...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 23(1A), Section 4—Case involving the acquisition of land, the court determines that a 12% per annum increase can be applied to the value of the land established at Rs.520/- per square yard in 1993, up to the year 2001 when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Notably, during the period from 1993 to 2001, there was a phase of attrition in land rates rather than an increase. As a result, the compensation is enhanced at Rs.514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the appellants, taking into account the specific circumstances and the variation in land rates during the relevant period. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 23, Section 23(1), Section 23(2), Section 24, Section 30, Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 51A, Section 54—Land acquisition case, the Supreme Court held that the Reference Court and the High Court erred in making deductions for development charges from the market value determined based on sale deeds. The court deemed the 25% deduction under two heads as legally unsustainable. The Appellants were granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. with statutory benefits, including interest on solatium. The impugned judgments and the Reference Court's award were set aside, emphasizing the flawed approach in making deductions and establishing the entitlement to compensation with annual escalation. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Court considered the acquisition of land measuring 20 cottahs and the challenge under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It held that failure to furnish a copy of the Section 5A enquiry report, in the absence of a request, doesn't vitiate the enquiry. However, the non-consideration of objections under Section 5A(1) denied effective hearing to the appellant. The court found a lack of application of mind by the competent authority in approving the recommendation for acquisition, allowing the appeal. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23, Section 28A, Section 4—Land acquisition cases, the consideration paid by a claimant to the vendor in close vicinity of the acquired land is deemed the best evidence of its market value. Courts should not award more unless a different conclusion is justifiable. Appellate courts must refrain from interference unless the judgment is flawed in principle or overlooks crucial valuation factors. The consideration paid by the owner shortly before acquisition serves as bona fide evidence of value. A cumulative annual increase of 10 to 15 percent in land market value is acceptable unless proven otherwise by state agencies or the acquiring authority. The impugned award is modified accordingly. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 54—Acquisition of the land—High Court could not, in deciding writ petitions to quash land acquisition, issue interim orders compelling the Government to make circle rates the primary criterion for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and apply it to acquisitions made before the notification. Although the High Court expressed concern about low market values determined by Land Acquisition Collectors, the Act has a comprehensive mechanism for market value and compensation. There was no justification for mandating circle rates as a significant factor in market value determination. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 300A—Case involving the acquisition of land for the construction of Police Lines, the court found that the invocation of urgency provisions was unjustified. The seven-year gap between the first requisition sent by the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) and the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) indicated a lack of genuine urgency. The court emphasized that no one can be deprived of their property without the authority of the law, and inconveniences cannot justify illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional actions by the State Government. As a result, the court set aside the impugned judgments and quashed the notifications related to the land acquisition. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), 18(1), 54—Limitation Act, 1963 - Section Section 5—Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14—Acquisition of land—Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. It emphasized that if similarly situated persons have been granted relief inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer a legal right on others to claim the same relief. The court found that there was no sufficient cause to justify the delay in approaching the court, and the High Court's order, which refused to condone the delay, was in accordance with the statutory provisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 5A—Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987—Section 3(1)—Acquisition of land—Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed writ petitions filed by the appellants seeking to quash the acquisition of their land—The Supreme Court highlighted that a prior order had quashed the acquisition related to the Chandigarh Technology Park—The land acquisition process began with a notification dated 1.10.2002, and the appellants filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—However, the Land Acquisition Officer's reports, as found by the Court, did not sufficiently consider these objections—The Court ruled that the violation of the right to file objections and lack ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18—Acquisition of land—Determine the adequacy of compensation initially set by the Collector, the burden of proof rests on the landowner to demonstrate that the Collector's award does not accurately reflect the compensation owed. The claimant must establish that the amount awarded by the Collector requires an increase. It's important to note that the reference to a Civil Court is not akin to an appeal from one forum to another, where the appellate forum makes a decision based on the evidence presented before the lower forum. The claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating the need for enhanced compensation. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 5A(2), 49(2), 50—Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 53, 73, 300A—Acquisition of land—Constitution of India, the government of Rajasthan was acquiring land for a project to improve transport services for the benefit of the public and private entities. Appellants challenged this acquisition for the Railways. The official respondents opposed the challenge on grounds of delay, locus standi, and other reasons. The court, recognizing the importance of the legal issues raised, decided to address them. After analyzing the issues, the court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. As a result, the objections and submissions raised by the official respondents were not further considered, and the legal propositions raised by the appellants were settled. ...

Acquisition—The entire batch of cases arises out of acquisition made in four different villages and that instead of completing the paper books in regard to all the petitions it would be convenient for all concerned to complete the pleadings and filing of papers in two cases from each such village, which shall then be treated as lead cases. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in cross appeals/petitions may also undertake a similar exercise and identify cases that could be treated as lead cases to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matters. ...

Railways Act, 1989—Section 2, Section 2(37A), Section 20A, Section 20A(1), Section 20A(2), Section 20A(4), Section 20B, Section 20C, Section 20D, Section 20D(1), Section 20D(2), Section 20E, Section 20E(1), Section 20E(2), Section 20F, Section 20F(1), Section 20F(2), Section 20F(3), Section 20F(4), Section 20H, Section 20I, Section 20J—Acquisition of land for a special railway project under Chapter IVA of the Railways Act, 1989. The acquisition was initiated through a declaration published in the official gazette. However, a challenge arose regarding the time limit for making the award of compensation. The central issue revolved around whether the one-year period stipulated in Section 20F(2) of the Act for making the award should be counted from the date of publication in the official gazette or from any subsequent publication...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 11, Section 115—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 4, Section 41, Section 50, Section 54—Case involves a dispute over compensation for land acquisition for a bus station complex in Pithapuram, Andhra Pradesh. The dispute revolves around the calculation of compensation, interest, and other related matters. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and the Land Acquisition Officer had filed various petitions and appeals challenging the calculations. The APSRTC initially challenged the calculations but lost in court, and subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer pursued similar challenges, which were also dismissed. The court ultimately ruled that the Land Acquisition Officer's attempts to challenge the calculations were impermissible and tha...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 4(2)—Publication in newspapers is mandated—The newspapers chosen must have reasonably good circulation within the affected locality—Using obscure newspapers with minimal circulation, whether for cost-saving measures or political/official favoritism, undermines the intent of the publication requirement, which is to ensure affected parties are adequately informed—However, if the notification is published in two newspapers with regular and steady circulation, even if they collectively hold only a 2% to 3% market share of the total newspapers, it does not automatically invalidate the acquisition process—The primary objective is to provide sufficient notice to the public—The acquisition proceedings remain valid as long as the publication fulfi...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 23(1), Section 4—The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, concerning land acquisition and exemption provisions—It emphasized that once relevant circumstances for exemption exist, the government's opinion on the expediency of granting exemption should be respected, barring exceptional circumstances—The Court urged a liberal interpretation of Section 178(2) to prevent defeating the power's exercise for genuine reasons—Notably, with 96% of landowners already accepting compensation, challenges to the constitutional validity of the provisions were rejected, leading to the dismissal of appeals—Additionally, the Court clarified that neither Article 300A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act mandates rehabilitation measure...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 23(1A)—Allahabad High Court's order directing the Housing Commissioner to fund the payment of additional compensation to respondent No. 1 and instructing the Land Acquisition Officer to decide on the respondent’s application for such compensation—The land was acquired in 1969 for the Ghazipur-Bastauli scheme, with possession taken in 1973 and compensation awarded in 1975—The respondent sought additional compensation post the 1984 amendment of the Land Acquisition Act—Despite prolonged correspondence, no payment was made, prompting the respondent to file a writ petition, which the High Court disposed of without addressing the respondent's entitlement under Section 23(1A)—The Supreme Court found this approach flawed and set aside the High Court&...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 11, Section 17, Section 17(1)(4), Section 4—The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a petition challenging land acquisition for Delhi's Metro Rail project—Despite the availability of the Metro Railways Act, 1978, urgency prompted authorities to invoke the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—The Court rejected claims that urgency provisions were unjustified, citing a lack of similar urgency clauses in the Metro Railways Act—Additionally, the appellants' challenge regarding adjacent government land was dismissed due to notification confirming it as reserved forests—With compliance to compensation requirements and urgency for the Commonwealth Games, the Court affirmed the acquisition's validity, emphasizing public purpose and procedural adherence—The appeal was...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 4(1)—The appeal concerns a land acquisition case where the appellants contested the compensation amount for their land acquired for construction purposes—The High Court, after considering various evidences, primarily relying on Exhibit 1, a sale deed, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre—The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court—The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the relevance of Exhibit 1, despite its limitations, in determining the compensation—It acknowledged the difficulty in finding exact comparables but stressed the need for a cautious approach—Considering the size and location of the acquired land, the Court found the compensation rate reasonable—Consequently, the appeal was dism...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 18 and 25 (before its amendments in Year 1984)—Acquisition of land—Compensation—Case involves the acquisition of a school's playground land for road expansion by the respondent. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 4/- per sq.ft., which the school contested, seeking Rs. 30/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Court awarded Rs. 20/- per sq.ft. The High Court, on appeal, reduced it to Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. with increased interest and solatium. The Supreme Court, citing the unamended Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, held the amended provision inapplicable as the notification and award were before 24th Sept. 1984. It modified the High Court's judgment, directing the respondent not to recover the compensation already paid to the school. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 17, Section 4, Section 6—Due to the Moradabad Development Authority's (MDA) decision not to proceed with the acquisition and a letter requesting the transfer of the estimated compensation to another scheme, the award was not made, rendering the petition moot—The Division Bench instructed the District Collector, Moradabad, to investigate and submit a personal affidavit clarifying the authority of 'R' to file an affidavit and the circumstances surrounding its submission—'R' was added as a party and directed to file his affidavit—The court declined to grant relief to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the appellants, emphasizing that possession had been taken 18 years ago, with 80% of the compensation already deposited. ...

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Section 209—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 172, Section 173, Section 174, Section 175, Section 176, Section 177, Section 178—Acquisition of lands under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act—The dispute arose when the appellants contended that the acquisition proceedings were illegal as the vested remaindermen were not given notice—The High Court held that notice of acquisition must be issued to those whose names are recorded in the revenue records as owners, sharers, or occupiers—The court clarified that there is no obligation to issue notices to persons whose names are not entered in the revenue records unless they are known or believed to be interested, at the discretion of the Collector—The court further criticized the dir...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 4(1), Section 54(1)—Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and restoring the order passed by the Reference Court—The appellant's land, located within the Bagalkot Municipality area, was acquired in 1991—The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed the market value, but the Reference Court increased the compensation, relying on specific sale deeds—On appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the High Court modified the award, reducing the compensation—The appellant's counsel cited precedent (The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs—Mohd—Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib) approving a ten percent increase per annum for similar land—The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 10, Section 18, Section 23, Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 9—Provided text appears to be a legal document or a detailed account related to land acquisition proceedings in the context of the Land Acquisition Act—It discusses various civil appeals and notifications related to the acquisition of lands in different villages, such as Chilla Saroda Bangar, Gharoli, Kondli, and Dallupura—The text also references previous court decisions, including Karan Singh, Bali Ram Sharma, and Gian Chand, which set legal principles for determining compensation for acquired land.The document delves into the details of compensation amounts awarded, dates of notifications, and various legal arguments presented in the case—It seems to involve a dispute over the compensation rates for land acquisi...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 11, Section 18, Section 23(2), Section 25, Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 6—In land acquisition matters involving common evidence for a large number of parties, the determination of compensation must consider the unique features of the village and the specific characteristics of the land, especially when it belongs to one or two individuals—The capitalization method for assessing compensation, particularly in relation to fruit-bearing trees, is well-established.The holder of land has a statutory right to seek the determination of compensation—Valuation of agricultural land and orchards/forests differs significantly—Legal principles and exemplars are applicable to the former, while a multiplier (eight or ten, as the case may be) based on the yield from trees or plantations ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18—Acquisition of land—In a land acquisition case for building a new city, the Reference Court awarded compensation at Rs—5/- per sq—m—The Trial Court had initially awarded Rs—10/- per sq—m., reduced to Rs—11/- by the impugned judgment—The lands were agricultural, and in the absence of comparable sales, the Reference Court should have used alternative valuation methods—The State failed to provide essential information on crop nature, yield, and irrigation facilities—The potential for development and building purposes depends on various factors—Adapting a belting system, a compensation rate of Rs—10/- per sq—m—would serve justice—The appeals were partly allowed. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 11, Section 11(2), Section 11A, Section 36, Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 48, Section 48(1), Section 48(2), Section 48A, Section 5A, Section 5A(2), Section 6, Section 8, Section 9—General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 21—Appellants treated the lapse of acquisition proceedings as a withdrawal by the government and filed a claim for compensation under Section 48(2) of the Act. However, their claims were dismissed, including at the High Court level. The court clarified that the term 'withdraw' in Section 48 indicates a voluntary and conscious decision by the government, which is different from a statutory lapse under Section 11A. The statutory lapse resulting from non-approval of the proposed award does not amount to withdrawal under Section 48(1). The application under Sectio...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 23(1A), Section 23(2), Section 34, Section 4, Section 5A, Section 6—Case revolves around the land acquisition proceedings for a piece of land near Bangalore. The appellant's land was acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway. The appellant sought higher compensation and argued that the land had commercial potential due to its proximity to the highway. The Reference Court partially allowed the claim, but the High Court increased the compensation while deducting an amount for development charges. The Supreme Court upheld the increased compensation but found no basis for the deduction and set it aside, granting the appellant the compensation at the increased rate without any deductions. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4(1) and 18—Acquisition of land—Reduction of compensation by High Court—High Court had taken into consideration all relevant facts in granting compensation. High Court fully justified in giving due weightage to fact that sale deed of 1986 in respect of acquired land was available and same ought to be basis for determining market value of land. A party will be entitled to get amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property, provided transaction, be bona fide and entered into with due regard to prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time. In the instant case, only an year ago, appellant himself purchased this very piece of land for Rs. 45,000/- and after an year, State has given compensation of Rs. 1,30,680/-, which cannot be said to be inadequate. Ref...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 18—Acquisition of land—Enhancement of compensation by High Court—Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of provisions of Act depends upon a large number of factors, first being nature and quality of land. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining valuation of land. It may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of nature and quality of land. Lands in question being agricultural land some amount will have to deducted towards development cost. Award modified in view of obtaining factual profile. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 6(1)—Case involves a challenge to a land acquisition notification issued on 20.12.1996. The appellants obtained an interim injunction preventing demolition of constructed land, with extensions granted until a specified date. The suit was later dismissed for default on 19.08.2000. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29.11.2000. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notification. The respondents argued a bona fide belief in the injunction's continuation. The Supreme Court ruled that any Section 6 declaration made after one year from the Section 4(1) notification's publication is void. The judgment set aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a stay order, unless vacated, does not continue inde...

...

Land Reforms Act, 1953—Section 27, Section 27(1),—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Acquisition of land—Appellant, a government company responsible for hydel power projects in Himachal Pradesh, challenged a High Court judgment directing it to grant benefits under its Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme to the first respondent—The dispute involved land acquisition for a power project—The appellant contended that the first respondent, who claimed compensation and scheme benefits, was not the real owner of the acquired land—The High Court, considering certificates and authorities, allowed the writ petition—The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, stating that the dispute over land ownership between the State Government and another party did not diminish the first respondent's...

  Acquisition—The appeal by special leave challenges a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India—The High Court declared certain provisions as ultra vires the Constitution and held that clause 3(e) of Article 323-B, to the extent it provides for the transfer of all pending cases, violates the basic structure of the Constitution—The Supreme Court rejects the argument that the Tribunal must have been constituted solely for disputes under laws related to agrarian reform to fall under Article 323-B—Any law concerning "land reforms" is sufficient to fall within the ambit of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 323-B—The Court upholds the reasoning of the learned single Judge and sets aside the impugned judgmen...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23—Acquisition of land—U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) filed appeals challenging the High Court's judgments that increased the compensation for acquired lands to Rs. 8/- or Rs. 9/- per square yard—The lands were notified for acquisition for planned industrial development, with the Land Acquisition Officer initially fixing the market value at Rs. 2/- per square yard—The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, concluded that the market value should be Rs. 9/- per square yard—The appellants contended that the High Court's decision was unjustified, as the lands were agricultural and contained deep pits, making them unsuitable for valuation based on developed lands—The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4, Section 5A, Section 6—Acquisition of land for residential, commercial, and institutional purposes—The appellants sought exclusion of their lands from acquisition, claiming the existence of structures and residences prior to the Section 4(1) notification—The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, prompting appeals—The appellants expressed no challenge to the acquisition but sought the exclusion of structures—Referring to a similar precedent, the Court directed the Secretary, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, to consider objections, excluding lands with structures for beneficial enjoyment—Adjustments for planned development were permitted, and the decision would not hinder structure removal for civic amenities—The directions were specific to residenti...

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964—Section 67—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Dispute over properties in Bijapur, Karnataka, claimed by the first respondent through acquisition under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904—The Karnataka Board of Wakf (appellant) contested, asserting these properties as Wakf, with historical roots dating back to the 13th century—The trial court held in favor of the first respondent, finding government ownership under the Ancient Monuments Act.On appeal, the High Court affirmed, rejecting the appellant's plea to produce additional evidence—The court emphasized that ownership claims lacked concrete evidence—The appellant's assertion of Wakf properties was nullified, ruling that the suit property is government-owned—Adverse pos...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 20—Dispute related to the acquisition of land for a Thermal Power Station in Bihar—The acquiring body sought impleadment in pending references challenging compensation—The High Court ordered impleadment in all pending references and allowed the acquiring body to file appeals—The appellants contested this, citing previous dismissal of their impleadment applications—The Supreme Court, referring to precedent, clarified that the acquiring body is a necessary and proper party—It set aside the High Court order, quashed awards enhancing compensation, and remitted cases to the Reference Court, directing impleadment—The Court allowed adjustments for enhanced compensation already paid—The appeal was disposed of with no costs. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—Section 12, Section 4, Section 4(1),—Udaipur Bhuwana Extension Scheme—A writ petition challenging the notification was filed, and the High Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo—The writ petition was later withdrawn in 1994—Subsequently, various stages of the acquisition process, including notifications and declarations, were carried out—A total of 43 writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings, with the High Court allowing the appeals and quashing the acquisition proceedings in 1998—The High Court held that the publication of notices in newspapers before June 4, 1992, the date of the publication of the Section 4(1) notification, could not be considered for determining the limitation period for the Section 6(1) declaration—The High C...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 17(1),—Petitioner requisitioned a portion of the Grand Hotel premises in Delhi under the Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952—After the 1952 Act lapsed, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for public purposes, including housing a government office at 2, Under Hill Road—The High Court, following a similar case, quashed the notifications due to lack of urgency, improper use of Section 17(1) of the Act, and failure to comply with Section 17(3A)—The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision—A subsequent review application was filed, arguing changes in legal principles, but the Supreme Court maintained the correctness of its earlier order, concluding that the...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 18, Section 4(1)— Supreme Court addressed land acquisition cases involving the formation of Bagalkot new township in Karnataka—The State of Karnataka issued notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking to acquire plots for public purposes—The claimants challenged the awarded compensation, contending that the Land Acquisition Officer undervalued the land—The reference Court, appreciating the developmental potential, granted a 10% annual appreciation for subsequent years—While the Court found a factual error in valuing the land at Rs—6.85 per sq—ft., it determined the reasonable market value at Rs—5/- per sq—ft—The Court partly allowed the appeals related to the 1985 acquisition, adjusting the market value—In a separate ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 10, Section 10B, Section 11, Section 17, Section 17(1), Section 17(4), Section 4, Section 4(1), Section 5A, Section 6, Section 9—Legal case, the acquisition proceedings related to premises on Dehi Serampore Road, Calcutta, requisitioned for Calcutta National Medical College students, were initially set aside by the Calcutta High Court—The premises were subject to multiple acquisition attempts and legal challenges—The High Court, in a recent judgment, quashed the acquisition, citing a lack of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act—The Court concluded that non-delivery of possession, despite earlier orders, rendered the acquisition mala fide—The appellant argued that urgency was valid due to the public purpose of accommodating the medical college&m...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 142—Land acquisition notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the development of Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh—After legal challenges, a fresh notification was issued in August 1985—The Supreme Court, in a 1991 order, upheld the acquisition but deemed the notification date as January 1, 1988, for determining compensation—The court clarified that no fresh declaration u/s 6 or award u/s 11 was required, allowing possession under section 16—In 1998, compensation was redetermined—Appellants, unsatisfied, claimed lapsing of proceedings due to delay—The court rejected this, emphasizing the limited scope of the earlier order and directing compensation payment—The judgment upheld acquisition, maintained the 1985 notification as of 1988...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 23(2) and 55—Acquisition of land dispute over the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) concerning the acquisition of land for a power station. The Kaataka Electricity Board (KEB) challenged the award, arguing that it should be in line with the prior agreement between the parties. The agreement specified compensation at Rs. 14,250 per gent for 2/3rd area of the property. However, the LAO awarded compensation for 50% of the total area and included interest. The High Court upheld the award, noting the appellant's unwillingness to sign a specified form. The Supreme Court ruled that the LAO should have adhered to the written agreement, emphasizing the binding nature of contractual terms. While solatium was deemed appropriate, the awarded interest was set aside. The Court directe...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28, Section 4(1) - Appellants challenged a judgment of the High Court that rejected their appeals against the award made by the Reference Court in a land acquisition matter—The appellants claimed to be the owners of various survey numbers acquired for the benefit of Singareni Collieries under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation, but the appellants sought higher compensation based on a precedent (O.P. No. 2/90)—The High Court, however, held that the judgment in O.P. No. 2/90 was not res judicata and remanded the matter to the Reference Court—The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, declined to interfere with the impugned order—It noted that the Reference Court had already disposed of the matter on remand, and the fresh ...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 17—Case involving land acquisition, the Supreme Court clarified that once possession of land is taken under the Land Acquisition Act with the invocation of the urgency clause, and the land vests in the State free from encumbrances, a subsequent notification under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act cannot re-vest the land—In this specific instance, the Court noted that possession was taken on February 23, 1955, and the land vested in the State—The notification under the Estates Acquisition Act was issued after the date of possession—Consequently, the Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act—The High Court's view, denying compensation, was deemed erroneous, and the case was remitted back to the High Court...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4, Section 5A, Section 6, Section 9—Case involves the acquisition of land for planned development purposes, encompassing both residential and commercial usage—The State Government's classification of existing structures on the acquired lands into 'A' class without providing a basis for such classification was deemed improper by the court—The appellants contended that their structures, characterized by features like pucca construction with R.C—roofing and Mosaic flooring, were arbitrarily excluded from acquisition, while similar structures were allowed to remain.The court observed that the State Government failed to present any material or architectural plans justifying the classification or demonstrating why the existing structures on the appellants' lands co...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 3, Section 38A, Section 39, Section 4(1) - Public Purpose and Society Benefit—State Government's Dual Functions and Withdrawal Protocol: The Supreme Court clarifies the procedural requirements under Sections 3(f)(vi) and 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—It highlights that the State Government must form a tentative conclusion on land necessity for public purpose, coupled with specific approval for society benefit—Material on record, if sufficient and genuine, can inform these decisions—Furthermore, withdrawal from acquisition, especially when land is earmarked for society housing, necessitates hearing the beneficiary society—The case underscores the importance of due process and consultation in land acquisition matters involving public and societal intere...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 17(4), Section 4(1), Section 6—Appellants challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that upheld land acquisition proceedings in a group of writ petitions—The High Court's decision on 29.5.1998 was confirmed, and the possession, initially with the government and now with the Town Planning Authority, was also affirmed—The Supreme Court clarified that no further declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was required—The Court stated that it was only fixing a fresh date for the Section 4(1) Notification, and the Land Acquisition Collector should proceed with the Award inquiry and pass the Award according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act—With this clarification, the appeals were disposed of. ...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 17(4), Section 3, Section 4—Acquisition of land—Permissibility—Acquisition of land for companies—The court clarified that construction work undertaken by a company must be perennially and directly useful to the public, emphasizing its permanent utility for all times—The acquisition for an approach road leading to a temple or religious place, even if used annually on a single occasion, was deemed permissible as it served the public interest—However, the court found fault in the acquisition process, noting that the need for a passage through the land where the landowner's structures stood was not genuine—The state authorities, relying on subjective satisfaction, did not validly assess relevant objective facts—The court emphasized that the satisfacti...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4—Granting leave, heard a group of Civil Appeals concerning the quantum of compensation for the acquisition of land in village Rangpuri @ Malikpur Kohi, Delhi—The land had been notified for acquisition for the planned development of Delhi—The Appeals involved multiple judgments and references to various Additional District Judges—The High Court partly allowed the appeals, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000 per bigha for the entire acquired land—The appellants sought compensation similar to that awarded for lands in adjoining villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, but the Court found this request untenable due to differences in land potentiality and evidence availability—The High Court's assessment of market value at Rs. 3000 per bigha, based on availab...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article—32—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953—Section 18, Section 19A, Section 19B—Acquisition of land, it was established that fallow lands described as "Banjar Kadim" and "Banjar Jadid" did not fall within the definition of "land" under the relevant Act—The Act's purpose would be frustrated if an interpretation were applied that treats lands brought under cultivation as acquisitions or accretions to the original holding of the landowner—The Act's intention is to exclude any improvements in the evaluation of the holding from the scope of acquisition—Such improvements, whether through cultivation or other means, do not constitute acquisitions under the Act's provisions regarding transfers, exchanges, leases, agreeme...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 28A(1)—Compensation was enhanced by a District Judge's award, challenged by the State in an appeal pending before the High Court—Meanwhile, respondents filed a redetermination application based on the District Judge's award—The High Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to declare the award by November 1992—However, considering the pending appeal, the Supreme Court ordered to keep the redetermination application on hold until the High Court's decision—The Collector was instructed to act according to the High Court's judgment—The writ petition was dismissed with this direction—The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14, Article 21—Petition under Article 32 challenges the respondents' obligation to provide employment to displaced residents of Rourkela, despite compensation for acquired land—The court rejected the petitioners' claim, noting the employment offered to 4557 displaced persons against 2901 affected families and the provision of infrastructure and subsidies—It dismissed the constitutional challenge under Article 21, stating that land acquisition followed legal procedures and compensation was provided—The obligation to ensure livelihood doesn't extend to providing employment for every displaced family member—The court deemed the government's efforts reasonable and constitutional—Acknowledging the strain on public sector undertakings, it directed the ...

...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 24—Determination of compensation for land acquisition for a grain market—The Court upholds the belting of 22 karmas as proper for differential treatment in compensation, rejecting arguments for higher compensation and parity with other cases—It emphasizes the settled principle of belting in land valuation and finds no illegality in the determination—The Court also notes that the purpose of acquisition does not affect compensation under Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act—While referencing another case where a different valuation was applied, the Court finds no basis for interference and affirms the High Court's decision to value the remaining land at Rs. 65,000 per acre—As the State did not appeal, the Court concludes that no justification exists for inter...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 23 and 24—Acquisition of land for industrial use near Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak. Initially, compensation rates were fixed at Rs.20,560 and Rs.20,000 per acre for different classifications—Dissatisfied landowners obtained a uniform rate of Rs. 7 per square yard from the District Judge. However, subsequent appeals sought higher compensation—A Single Judge granted Rs. 10 per square yard, later upheld by a Division Bench—Another group sought Rs. 18.60 per square yard based on a separate case—The Supreme Court found discrepancies in the compensation rates and inconsistencies in applying price increase ratios—It ruled in favor of uniformity, awarding Rs. 15 per square yard to the appellants—The decision emphasized the lack of significant disparity in land cla...

Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968—Section 16, Section 2, Section 21—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 1 Rule 10—Acquisition of land for the extension of an Air Field in Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir—Disputes arose regarding the determination of compensation by the competent authority and the acceptance of the offer made—The High Court held that the competent authority's award constituted an offer and directed an agreement to be entered into—However, the Supreme Court clarified that the offer did not bind the appellant as proper procedures were not followed—It affirmed that the appellant, as the requisitioning authority, had locus standi to object to the compensation—The Court ruled that the matter should be referred to arbitration...

...

...