Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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.

Latest Legal News