Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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