Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Resolves Decades-Long Land Dispute: Orders Fresh Demarcation and Compensation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on September 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, put an end to a protracted land dispute that had spanned over a quarter of a century. The case, arising from contempt proceedings, involved allegations of the unauthorized use of land for various purposes, including the construction of a bus stand.

The Court's directive, emanating from Article 142 of the Constitution of India, was a result of careful consideration of the case's unique circumstances. The controversy centered on whether the disputed land should be compensated or restored to its original owners.

The Court noted, "A quarter of a decade and it still carries on!" and acknowledged the complexity of the situation. The original judgment had ordered the determination of compensation or restoration of the land to the petitioners, given the changed nature of the land.

"(ii). Respondents shall determine compensation of disputed land at twice market value which would be determined in accordance with provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pay the same to petitioners within three months from the date of judgment, failing which they shall restore possession of disputed land to petitioners by removing constructions, if any, raised thereon."

However, the respondents did not comply with this order, resulting in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioners. The bone of contention in the contempt proceedings was the identity of the land in question.

The Court considered previous demarcation proceedings and concluded that the respondents had offered a specific parcel of land (Khasra No.276) to the petitioners, which had not been accepted by them. Given these circumstances, the Court found it difficult to categorize the respondents' actions as contemptuous, although it recognized the unnecessary prolongation of the matter.

To put an end to the dispute and prevent further litigation, the Court exercised its authority under Article 142 and directed a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities. The Court outlined that if any construction was found on Khasra No.276, compensation, as determined by the order dated 19.12.2016, should be paid. If Khasra No.276 was unoccupied, it should be restored to the petitioners. The question of damages for the utilization of Khasra No.276 against the respondents was left open for future determination.

The Court set a date for the demarcation: October 9, 2023, commencing from 11:00 a.m. Importantly, the demarcation was to be carried out without influence from previous demarcations or court orders in the impugned proceedings.

The Court's decision highlighted the need for parties to promptly and transparently present relevant information during legal proceedings. The judgment has now brought an end to this longstanding legal battle, offering a resolution that ensures fairness and justice.

This landmark judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and resolving disputes that impact the rights of individuals and the larger public interest.

Date of Decision: 22-09-2023

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

 

Latest Legal News