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 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