Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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