Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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