Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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