Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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