Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.     

 

Similar News