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 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