Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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