Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Acquired Land: Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 96, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Acquired Land: Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly concerning valuation of trees on acquired land and the method of calculating compensation when land value is determined using sales statistics. CASE TYPE: […]

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Acquired Land: Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Judges, Land Acquisition, National Highways Act, 1956, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3G, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 34 of Arbitration Act in National Highway Land Acquisition Cases Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: R.F. Nariman, J and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a court modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or is

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17(2)(c), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquired for industrial development. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the Judgment: April 08,

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition in Haryana: Acquainted Realtors LLP vs. State of Haryana (2021)

/ Compensation, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court enhances land compensation in Haryana acquisition case Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 179 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J. When the government acquires land for development, how is fair compensation determined? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case concerning land

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition in Haryana: Acquainted Realtors LLP vs. State of Haryana (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021)

/ Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether landowners should be required to return excess compensation received due to prior court orders, when the final compensation is reduced. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Civil Case Name: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles compensation for land acquisition under Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Asha Ram (23 March 2021)

/ Hemant Gupta, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 24, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 with Section 28, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 with Section 32

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Asha Ram: Supreme Court on Land Acquisition Compensation Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2021 Citation: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Asha Ram (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2021 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Hemant Gupta, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Can the

Supreme Court settles compensation for land acquisition under Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Asha Ram (23 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation for Appellant: Murali Alias Dhananjayan vs. State of Kerala (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Compensation, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1)

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation for Appellant: Murali Alias Dhananjayan vs. State of Kerala (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appellant is entitled to the same enhanced compensation as his father and brother for land acquired under the same notification. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Murali Alias Dhananjayan v. State of Kerala. Judgment Date: March

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation for Appellant: Murali Alias Dhananjayan vs. State of Kerala (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Requisitioned Property: Punalur Paper Mills vs. West Bengal Mineral Development (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Compensation for Requisitioned Property, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, R.F. Nariman, West Bengal Premises Requisition And Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, West Bengal Premises Requisition And Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 with Section 10B

Supreme Court on Requisitioned Property: Punalur Paper Mills vs. West Bengal Mineral Development (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can invoke urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire property previously requisitioned, after the requisition period has expired. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition and Requisition Case Name: Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. West Bengal

Supreme Court on Requisitioned Property: Punalur Paper Mills vs. West Bengal Mineral Development (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (28 January 2021)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Land Acquisition Law with Section 4, Land Acquisition Law with Section 6, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an award for land acquisition was validly approved by the State Government, and the implications of such approval on subsequent acquisition proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (28 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14

/ Compensation, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Interest on Solatium, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Date of the Judgment: January 13, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 14 Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna Can a claimant receive interest on solatium (an additional sum awarded in land

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Land Compensation Withdrawal in Nayara Energy Case (18 December 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Compensation, First Appeal, Judges, Land Acquisition, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy, Reference Court

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Land Compensation Withdrawal in Nayara Energy Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether claimants can withdraw enhanced land compensation without security. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Nayara Energy Limited vs. The State of Gujarat and others [Judgment Date]: 18 December 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Land Compensation Withdrawal in Nayara Energy Case (18 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Inherent Powers, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, Ranjan Gogoi, Review Jurisdiction, S. Abdul Nazeer, S.A. Bobde, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court Rules, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases (2020) Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. This was a nine-judge bench. Can the Supreme

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top