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

Landowners Awarded Equal Compensation in Land Acquisition Dispute: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted equal compensation to landowners in a dispute over land acquisition for the Vadodara Branch Canal of the Narmada Project. The bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, passed the verdict on August 16, 2023.

The case involved several affected landowners whose lands were acquired for the project. The appellants challenged a judgment by the Gujarat High Court that had reduced their compensation. The Supreme Court's decision, which came after granting special leave, upheld the principle of equal treatment for the appellants, ensuring they receive compensation equal to other affected landowners.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fairness and social justice in its judgment, stating, "In a welfare state like ours where we have promised all the citizens social and economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants are meted equal treatment as the other affected landowners."

The dispute revolved around the calculation of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court had initially enhanced the compensation, but the High Court had reduced it based on factors that were deemed irrelevant by the Supreme Court.

The judgment highlighted that the compensation for the appellants should not have been influenced by previous acquisitions that were not related to the project, stating, "The lands comprised in village Nimeta having been acquired in pursuance of a section 4 notification dated 18th June, 1981, which was at least 5 years prior to the acquisition by notification dated 26th June, 1986, such prior acquisition and compensation paid to the landowners affected by the same acquisition could not have served as a guiding factor for the High Court to determine compensation payable to the appellants."

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Reference Court's judgment and award, directing that the appellants be granted compensation as determined by the Reference Court, along with interest, within a specified timeframe.

Date of Decision: 16th August, 2023

KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/16-Aug-2023_KALUBHAI_VS_State.pdf"]

Similar News