Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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