Land Acquisition Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1025 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a court issue orders affecting parties without giving them a chance to be heard? The Supreme Court recently addressed this fundamental […]

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Open Remand for Land Compensation: Ali Akbar vs. State of Kerala (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Compensation, Evidence, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition, Reference Court, Remand

Supreme Court Orders Open Remand for Land Compensation: Ali Akbar vs. State of Kerala (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 10786-10787 of 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 10788-10796 of 2018 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Can a High Court remand a land acquisition compensation case back to the

Supreme Court Orders Open Remand for Land Compensation: Ali Akbar vs. State of Kerala (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute: Gopal Nagar Cooperative vs. Mohd. Aslam (2018) INSC 849 (27 September 2018)

/ Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, R. Banumathi, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 849 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a court set aside a decree passed without giving a party a fair chance to present its case? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute: Gopal Nagar Cooperative vs. Mohd. Aslam (2018) INSC 849 (27 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Hearing: Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank vs. Bhagirath Singh (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25(F), Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Right to be Heard, Service Law

Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Hearing: Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank vs. Bhagirath Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can pass an order against a party without providing them an opportunity to be heard. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited vs. Bhagirath Singh (Dead) Through L. Rs. [Judgment

Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Hearing: Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank vs. Bhagirath Singh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Re-Hearing of Land Acquisition Appeals: Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 17(1), Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 18(3), Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 19(7), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16(2), S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Orders Re-Hearing of Land Acquisition Appeals: Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeals filed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) as withdrawn based on a resolution by MUDA. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Civil Case Name: Mysore Urban Development Authority

Supreme Court Orders Re-Hearing of Land Acquisition Appeals: Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case (2018)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, Land Acquisition Law, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Parveen Kumar Etc. Judgment Date: May 16, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5545-5574 of 2018, Civil

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in compensation cases: Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat (24 April 2018)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, Reference Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act: Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be filed based on a High Court or Supreme Court judgment passed in appeal. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in compensation cases: Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat (24 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court remits land acquisition compensation matter to High Court: Harvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Law, Land Acquisition Law with Fair Compensation, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court remits land acquisition compensation matter to High Court: Harvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the compensation awarded in a land acquisition case was appropriate. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Harvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [Judgment Date]: April 23, 2018 Date of the Judgment: April 23,

Supreme Court remits land acquisition compensation matter to High Court: Harvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018)

/ Intermediary, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Vesting of Estates, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 with Section 44(2a)

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a land dispute case should be re-heard by the Land Tribunal for violation of natural justice CASE TYPE: Land Dispute Case Name: Ashim Ranjan Das (D) BY LRS. vs. Shibu Bodhak & ORS. [Judgment Date]: April 05,

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

/ Administrative Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Navin Sinha, Principles of Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Service Law, Show Cause Notice, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 266 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can an employee be terminated from service without being given a chance to explain their case? The

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: State of Punjab vs. Mangtu (2018)

/ Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Law, Land Value Fixation, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Remand of Cases

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: State of Punjab vs. Mangtu (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Land value fixation in acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Mangtu(Deceased) Through Lrs. And Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 23, 2018 Date of the Judgment: March 23, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 236 Judges:

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: State of Punjab vs. Mangtu (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018)

/ Civil Procedure, Consumer Dispute Redressal, Consumer Protection Act, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Notice Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can proceed ex-parte without ensuring proper notice to the parties. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: M/s Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top