Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18

Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for a valid reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act: Shahid Jamal vs. State of U.P. (30 January 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Land Acquisition Reference Applications: Shahid Jamal vs. State of U.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: What constitutes a valid application for reference to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically regarding the timing and content of such applications? CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Shahid Jamal & […]

Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for a valid reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act: Shahid Jamal vs. State of U.P. (30 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Maya Devi (D) Through LRs & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Judgment Date: 25 January 2018 Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018 Citation: (2018)

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Fresh Determination of Compensation: Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018) INSC 25

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Court Fees Act, Court Fees Act with Section 13, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Fresh Determination of Compensation Date of the Judgment: January 25, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 25 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. When land is acquired for public purposes, how should the compensation be determined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Fresh Determination of Compensation: Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018) INSC 25 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for re-determination of land acquisition compensation under Section 28A when the initial award is under appeal: Bharatsingh vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1062 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. What happens when a landowner applies for increased compensation under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the court’s award that they are relying on is being appealed? The Supreme Court addressed this issue, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for re-determination of land acquisition compensation under Section 28A when the initial award is under appeal: Bharatsingh vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Protects Landowners from Unfair Compensation in Delayed Land Acquisition: Mitesh Kumar Ramanbhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Consent Awards, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Date of the Judgment: November 16, 2017 Citation: Mitesh Kumar Ramanbhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 19501-19503 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 21067-21069 of 2014) Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar. Can the government use consent forms obtained years

Supreme Court Protects Landowners from Unfair Compensation in Delayed Land Acquisition: Mitesh Kumar Ramanbhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case: Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (27 October 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value of acquired land using the Belting System. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Judgment Date: 27 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 27 October 2017 Citation: Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2017) INSC 919

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case: Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (27 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2017) INSC 744 (13 September 2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Compensation, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 744 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Is it justifiable for a High Court to blindly follow a previous judgment when determining land compensation, or should each case be evaluated based on its own merits and evidence? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2017) INSC 744 (13 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Pomegranate Trees in Land Acquisition Case: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector (2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for fruit-bearing trees in land acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Telugu Ganga Project Judgment Date: July 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 664 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. (authored the

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Pomegranate Trees in Land Acquisition Case: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Sufficient Cause

Can a delay of 3671 days in filing an appeal be condoned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a land acquisition case. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay and also looked into the adequacy of compensation for fruit-bearing trees. This

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances land compensation based on average sale value: Vithal Rao vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for acquired land using comparable sales data, specifically when dealing with large land parcels and small plot sales. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Vithal Rao & Anr. Etc. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Judgment Date: July 7, 2017 Date of the Judgment: July 7, 2017 Citation:

Supreme Court enhances land compensation based on average sale value: Vithal Rao vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition impact on earnest money forfeiture in property sale agreements: Ramesh Chand vs. Tanmay Developers (2017) INSC 370 (26 April 2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Earnest Money, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 3(b), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 30, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963

Can a land acquisition nullify the forfeiture of earnest money in a prior agreement to sell? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the interplay between land acquisition proceedings and private contracts. This judgment highlights the importance of civil suits in resolving contractual disputes, especially when land is acquired

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition impact on earnest money forfeiture in property sale agreements: Ramesh Chand vs. Tanmay Developers (2017) INSC 370 (26 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Landowners Another Chance to Prove Higher Compensation: Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (2013)

/ Gyan Sudha Misra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 24, T.S. Thakur

Date of the Judgment: July 5, 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 499 Judges: T.S. Thakur, J. and Gyan Sudha Misra, J. Can a landowner get another chance to prove their claim for higher compensation if they failed to present evidence in the first instance? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning

Supreme Court Allows Landowners Another Chance to Prove Higher Compensation: Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) Read Post »

Scroll to Top