Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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