Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"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

Latest Legal News