Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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