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 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 Upholds High Court's Ruling: Unconstitutional Land Dispossession and Resumption Proceedings Deemed Illegal"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the ruling of the High Court of Orissa, underscoring the significance of lawful land allocation processes and constitutional adherence. The case, originating from a writ petition filed by Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda, revolved around the allocation of land to armed personnel and subsequent attempts to dispossess them through resumption proceedings.

The bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti emphasized the importance of a proper legal process in land allocation and re-entry. The Supreme Court observed, "The State's attempt to dispossess or allocate land without due process is unconstitutional and illegal."

The dispute arose from the allocation of land measuring acres 4.800 decimals to Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda, a participant in the Indo-China war. Despite the initiation of resumption proceedings by the State, the High Court found that the actions contradicted the State's own claims and were arbitrary. The High Court's decision was based on a thorough examination of documents and records, without exceeding the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"The High Court's findings were derived from existing records, not deciding disputed questions of fact," the Supreme Court noted, affirming the appropriateness of the High Court's approach.

This ruling highlights the significance of ensuring proper legal procedures in matters of land allocation and re-entry, safeguarding individuals' rights and preventing arbitrary dispossession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State and the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO), reinforcing the validity of the High Court's decision.

The case underscores the principle that adherence to the law is imperative even in matters involving government allocations, as the Supreme Court continues to play a pivotal role in upholding justice and safeguarding constitutional rights.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2023

Chairman-cum-managing director Vs Late surgeon vice admiral gp panda

Similar News