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 Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme 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 Orders Fresh Demarcation in Land Acquisition Dispute: "A Quarter of a Decade, and it Still Carries On!"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a fresh demarcation in a long-standing land acquisition dispute, stemming from allegations against a government authority. The case, marked by its complexity and contentious nature, reached its latest chapter on September 22, 2023, when the Supreme Court bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered its decision.

The heart of the matter lies in allegations against the respondent authority, which was accused of utilizing land without adhering to the proper acquisition process. This utilization included the construction of a bus stand. The case, which began years ago, culminated in proceedings that led to the quashing of acquisition proceedings. However, the court, mindful of the changed nature of the land, opted not to order the demolition of the construction on the disputed land and instead offered two options: compensation or possession restoration.

The court's observation, "A quarter of a decade, and it still carries on!" underscores the protracted nature of this legal battle.

The bone of contention in the contempt proceedings that followed was the specific land in question. The respondents claimed that there was no bus stand on Khasra No.276, suggesting that it existed on other lands. Conversely, the petitioners contended that the land being offered to them was, in fact, Khasra No.278, not Khasra No.276.

The court carefully considered the demarcation proceedings that took place after the initial judgment and concluded that the respondents had indeed offered Khasra No.276, but it had not been accepted by the petitioners.

While the court acknowledged that the matter had been needlessly prolonged by the respondents, it refrained from categorizing it as contempt. Instead, it exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to put an end to the controversy.

The court's decision is clear: a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities is necessary. Depending on the results of this demarcation, compensation will be paid if any construction is found on Khasra No.276, or the land will be restored to the petitioners if it is found unoccupied. The question of whether the petitioners can claim damages for the utilization of Khasra No.276 against the respondents has been left open for future proceedings.

Both parties have been directed to approach the Revenue Authorities for the demarcation, which is set to take place on October 9, 2023, starting at 11:00 a.m.

This decision underscores the importance of settling complex land acquisition disputes and ensuring justice is served even after protracted legal battles.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2023                       

RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL [D] BY LR  vs AMIT MOHAN PRASAD & ORS. 

                        

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Rakesh_Kumar_Aggarwal_D_By_Lr_vs_Amit_Mohan_Prasad_on_22_September_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News