Constitutional Law with Article 300-A

Supreme Court shifts land acquisition date for fair compensation: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz vs. Government of Karnataka (2025) INSC 3 (02 January 2025)

/ B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, K. V. Viswanathan, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with Section 28, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with Section 30, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11

Date of the Judgment: 02 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 3 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K. V. Viswanathan, J. Can the government delay compensation for land acquisition for over two decades? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue in a case concerning the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project. The Court ruled that landowners […]

Supreme Court shifts land acquisition date for fair compensation: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz vs. Government of Karnataka (2025) INSC 3 (02 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Enemy Property: Lucknow Nagar Nigam vs. Kohli Brothers (22 February 2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 285, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Enemy Property Act, 1968, Enemy Property Act, 1968 with Section 2(c), Enemy Property Act, 1968 with Section 5, Enemy Property Act, 1968 with Section 8, Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 with Section 129-A(e)

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Enemy Property: Lucknow Nagar Nigam vs. Kohli Brothers (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether enemy property vested in the Custodian is considered Union property and thus exempt from state taxation. CASE TYPE: Property Tax Law. Case Name: Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Others vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Others. [Judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Enemy Property: Lucknow Nagar Nigam vs. Kohli Brothers (22 February 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compensation and rehabilitation for land acquisition under Coal Bearing Areas Act: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Mathias Oram (2022) INSC 946 (3 November 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 4(1), Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 7(1), Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 105, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Third Schedule, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation and Rehabilitation in Mahanadi Coalfields Case LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation and rehabilitation for land acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. Case Name: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mathias Oram & Ors. Judgment Date: 3

Supreme Court clarifies compensation and rehabilitation for land acquisition under Coal Bearing Areas Act: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Mathias Oram (2022) INSC 946 (3 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition with Section 4, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can evade its responsibility to compensate landowners for land acquired without due process, citing delay and laches. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Constitutional Law. Case Name: Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vs. State of

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute Read Post »

Scroll to Top