Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Grants Compensation for Land Utilized Without Acquisition Proceedings - Dismisses Appeal on Limitation Ground

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has granted compensation to landowners whose land was utilized for the construction of a road without formal acquisition proceedings. The Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on the ground of limitation, emphasized that the original writ petitioners are entitled to compensation for their land, considering the market price as of May 17, 1996. However, due to the significant delay of 20 years in filing the writ petition, the Court ruled that no interest would be granted to the landowners for the said period.

The bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that although the land was used with the consent of the original writ petitioners, there was no documented evidence of their agreement to forego compensation. The Court stated, "In absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the landowners are entitled to compensation in terms of law." The judgment emphasized that the State cannot evade its legal responsibility to compensate individuals from whom private property has been expropriated.

Highlighting the deemed date of acquisition as May 17, 1996, the Court directed the State or the appropriate authority to calculate the compensation amount after allowing the landowners an opportunity to present evidence regarding the market price on that day. The Court mandated the State to make the payment within two months from the date of calculating the compensation amount, with the entire process to be completed within six months.

The judgment emphasized the significance of considering the circumstances while granting compensation, stating, "Doing complete justice between the parties, the original landowners may be awarded compensation considering the market price as on 17.05.1996, however with all other statutory benefits excluding the interest from 17.05.1996 till the writ petition was filed before the High Court."

Date of Decision: February 24, 2023

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.  VS Rajiv and Anr.

Latest Legal News