Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

In Quest for Uniform Compensation: Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Cases for Fresh Consideration by High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement in March  2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, addressed a vital issue concerning the uniformity in compensation awarded for land acquisition under various projects in Karnataka. The judgement emphasized the importance of consistency and fairness in awarding compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Legal Point: The apex court’s judgement critically revolved around the interpretation and application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, focusing on the compensation determination process for lands acquired for irrigation projects in Karnataka.

Facts and Issues: The civil appeals emerged from enhanced compensation amounts awarded by the Karnataka High Court for lands acquired for several irrigation projects like Bennethora, Amarja, and Lower Mullamari. These compensations, as observed, lacked consistency and uniformity, leading to the remand of these cases for reconsideration.

Court Assessment: Justice Surya Kant observed, “In the impugned judgement(s), the High Court has made no effort to analyze the concerned case(s) either notification-wise or for that matter, village-wise, including other parameters required for arriving at just compensation amounts.” The Court stressed on the need for a detailed, independent analysis in each case, especially considering the vastness and diversity of the acquisitions.

The Supreme Court noted discrepancies in the compensation awarded by different courts for similar acquisitions. It underscored the necessity for a uniform approach, stating, “The High Court will make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation, to the extent it is possible, in accordance with law.”

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, directing the High Court for a comprehensive reassessment of the compensation. The Court ordered, “The High Court, while undertaking this exercise, will not reduce the compensation to a rate which has already been paid to some of the land owners and which has attained finality.” Furthermore, the Court requested the High Court to expedite this process considering the acquisitions' age.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2024

The Executive Engineer, KNNL vs. Subhashchandra & Ors.

Similar News