Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Supreme Court Upholds Principle of Equal Compensation for Landowners in Land Acquisition Case

04 September 2024 11:04 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment , the Supreme Court of India, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta, reinforced the principle of equal treatment and fair compensation for landowners in land acquisition cases. The apex court’s ruling came in response to a series of appeals filed by affected landowners challenging a judgment and order passed by the Gujarat High Court.

The case revolved around the acquisition of lands for the Vadodara Branch Canal of the Narmada Project. The Gujarat High Court had initially enhanced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, only to later reduce it. The core issue centered on whether reliance on compensation awards from other acquisitions was justifiable in determining fair compensation for the appellants’ lands.

Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, observed that while the Reference Court and the Appellate Court had both erred in determining the compensation, the High Court had mistakenly considered compensation awarded for lands acquired in different circumstances. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing acquisitions based on section 4 notifications and treating landowners equally.

In a significant turn of events, the court highlighted the principle of social and economic justice. The judgment pointed out that the State of Gujarat had previously accepted and disbursed compensation based on a similar award without pursuing an appeal. This led the court to conclude that the appellants should not be in a worse position than other affected landowners who had received more compensation.

The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and order, restoring the Reference Court’s award of compensation dated 10th May, 2007. The court ruled that the appellants would be entitled to the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, minus the amounts previously received, along with a simple interest of 5% per annum from the award date. The court further directed the release of the entitled amount within ninety days from the date of the judgment.

This judgment underscores the commitment of the Indian judiciary to ensure fairness and justice in land acquisition cases, highlighting the significance of equal treatment for landowners and the application of principles of social and economic justice.

Date of Decision: 16TH AUGUST, 2023.

KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.     

Latest Legal News