Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“Issue of Limitation Raised Was Not Only Not Tenable but Highly Unreasonable and Improper": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Order in Land Acquisition Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 22, 2023 – In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the judgments and orders passed by the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 related to land acquisition proceedings.

The bench comprising J. BELA M. TRIVEDI and J. DIPANKAR DATTA observed that the "issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper." [Para 6]

The case revolved around the lands belonging to the appellant-trust that were sought to be acquired by the respondent for Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The parties had arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of the lands, and the High Court had disposed of the Writ Petition accordingly. However, the respondent-Committee raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court, taking undue advantage of ambiguity in the consent terms.

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret the document as a whole and found that the High Court's interference with the well-reasoned findings of the Reference Court was erroneous. "Such a plea raised after taking over the possession of lands in question from the appellant was not only not in consonance with the tenor of the consent terms but it smacked of ulterior motive on the part of the respondent," the bench noted. [Para 11]

The apex court held that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court were ex facie erroneous and set them aside, allowing both the appeals.

Date of Decision: August 22nd, 2023

SHRI NASHIK PANCHAVATI PANJARPOL TRUST & ORS.  vs THE CHAIRMAN & ANR.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/22-Aug-2023_NASHIK_PANCHAVATI_PANJARPOL_Vs_Chairman.pdf"]

Latest Legal News