Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

“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"]

Similar News