Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Land Acquisition | Compensation Raised to Rs. 4,50,000 Per Acre for Land Acquired Under Hippargi Barrage Project - Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed appeals concerning the enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the Hippargi Barrage project. The central legal issue was the determination of the fair market value and statutory benefits owed to the appellants whose lands were acquired for the construction of canals.

The appellants, landowners of irrigated lands, were initially awarded compensation of Rs. 1,31,263 per acre by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.). Dissatisfied, they approached the Reference Court, which increased the market value to Rs. 3,00,000 per acre. Subsequent appeals and cross-objections by both parties led to a re-evaluation of the compensation amount. Notably, in a similar matter, the market value was set at Rs. 3,69,000 per acre, a decision previously confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Comparable Sales Method: The appellants sought compensation at Rs. 5,00,000 per acre, based on a High Court order for similar lands acquired during the same period under the same project. The Supreme Court noted the respondents' admission to the fairness of a market value of Rs. 3,69,000 per acre for acquisitions from 2004-2005.

Annual Escalation: Acknowledging an annual escalation rate of 5% applied from the fixed market value in 2004-2005, the court found it just to set the compensation for lands acquired in 2007 at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre, modifying an earlier High Court order.

Equitable Relief: The Court directed that the appellants be compensated at the enhanced rate with all statutory benefits, interest, and costs, though it upheld the High Court's decision to deny interest for delays in filing cross-objections.

Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, granting compensation at Rs. 4,50,000 per acre. It emphasized that the decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case and should not serve as a precedent for future claims.

Date of Decision: May 07, 2024

Shripal & Anr. vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Latest Legal News