MSME Award Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226 To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 19: Allahabad High Court Electricity Company Strictly Liable For Death Due To Snapped Wire; Court Enhances Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court MPID Act Has No Provision To Release Attached Property To Owner After Auction Order Is Passed: Bombay High Court Non-Service Of Requisition Order Doesn't Vitiate Land Acquisition; Section 3(2) Of 1948 Act Is Directory: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Valid Journey Ticket From Deceased Is Strong Evidence Of Bona Fide Travel; Tribunal Can't Elevate Inference To Proof: Delhi High Court J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Of MLA; Says Public Servants’ Annoyance At Representative Raising Grievances Not ‘Public Disorder’ Vague Allegations Of Caste Abuse Without Mentioning Specific Caste Name Do Not Sustain Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High Court Public Interest Litigation Not Maintainable In Service Matters: Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To Reinstatement Of Panchayat Officials Choice Of Principal Is Absolute Right Of Minority Institutions, Seniority Cannot Be Imposed By State: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mutation Order Passed Without Notice To Parties Is Legally Unsustainable; Natural Justice Mandatory: Orissa High Court Right To Life Casts Obligation On State To Not Defeat Employee’s Medical Entitlements Through Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Sale Deeds Presumed Valid; Specific Performance Of Oral Re-conveyance Agreement Requires Cogent Evidence: Kerala High Court Uttering 'F*** Off' During Work Spat Lacks Sexual Intent, Not Sexual Harassment Under Section 354-A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court Cannot Implead State To Interpret Notifications In Private Litigations Under Article 227: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Or Substitute Its Own View Under Article 227 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Contradictory Dying Declaration Recorded After Tutoring Cannot Form Basis Of Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law In Dowry Death Case Section 498A IPC Not A Weapon To Settle Grudges Against In-Laws Without Specific Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law Physical Relationship For Years With Prior Knowledge Of Each Other's Marital Status Not Rape Under 'False Promise Of Marriage': Supreme 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"]

Latest Legal News