Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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