CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Dismissal of 1987 Land Acquisition Writ Petition; Remits Matter for Hearing on Merits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment dated 29th January 2024, set aside the orders of the High Court of Uttarakhand which had dismissed a writ petition concerning land acquisition dating back to 1987. The apex court has remitted the matter back to the High Court for a decision on its merits, providing relief to the appellant, J.N. Puri.

The appeal in the Supreme Court arose from the dismissal of Writ Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 by the High Court for want of prosecution in 1992, and the subsequent rejection of restoration and review applications. The appellant, claiming to still be in possession of the disputed land, had approached the apex court seeking redressal.

The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, observed, “In the facts and circumstances noted above and more particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition, we feel that the writ petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and decided on merits.”

Addressing the delay in the restoration application, the Court found that the High Court had incorrectly held that the restoration application was submitted with a delay of seven years. “As a matter of fact, the application for restoration was filed within a period of one month which fact has been admitted at para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand(respondent no. 1). The said application was never considered on merits,” the judgment read.

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court. It directed the High Court of Uttarakhand to restore the writ petition and decide the same on merits expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. This decision underscores the importance of hearing matters on their substantive merits, especially in long-standing disputes involving land acquisition.

J.N. Puri, the appellant in this case, has been engaged in a legal battle over his land since 1987. The respondents include the State of Uttar Pradesh (now State of Uttarakhand) and others.

Date of Decision: 29 January 2024

J.N. Puri V State Of Uttar Pradesh (Now State Of Uttarakhand) & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News