Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Decision on Land Acquisition Lapse

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, April 11, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the decision of the High Court regarding the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

The appeals before the Supreme Court involved the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) and others as appellants and M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The High Court had declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court divided the appeals into two categories. In the first category, where the original writ petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and sought a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court's decision was solely based on a previous case. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's decision in these cases was unsustainable, citing another judgment by the Constitution Bench.

In the second category of appeals, where only a declaration of lapse was sought, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court's judgments. The Court further remanded both categories of appeals back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the writ petitions on their merits, excluding the issue of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an early disposal of the cases and requested the High Court to decide them within a period of nine months.

This judgment brings clarity to the issue of land acquisition lapse and provides guidance for the future interpretation of relevant laws. The decision will have a significant impact on land acquisition cases and related disputes throughout the country.

The referred cases in this judgment include Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others Etc., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183.

D.D-11.Apr.2023

Haryana State Industrial  And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.  vs M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd.             

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/11-Apr-2023-Haryana-State-Industrial-Vs-Honeywell-Rep.pdf"]

Latest Legal News