Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

29 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KISHORE CHHABRAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 41931 March 2025Disposed off

The appellant, Kishore Chhabra, owned land in Sultanpur, Sonipat, which was included in a 1992 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development. He challenged the acquisition, arguing that his land should be released because a factory had been operating there since 1970 and that other simi

MANOHAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 90028 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of farmers, had their land acquired in the 1990s under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for the Jintur Industrial Area and were awarded Rs 10,800 per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer. They filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhancemen

MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusVINCENT DANIEL AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 40827 March 2025Dismissed

The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation sought to acquire land for a highway project and determined compensation using the circle rate fixed under the Indian Stamp Act, as prescribed by the Collector’s Guidelines. The landowners challenged the award, arguing that the compensation was excessive and that the "the

HIRALAL MOTILAL PARIKH (DECEASED THROUGH LRS)versusSPL. LAQ OFFICER & ANR.

2025 INSC 81527 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant sought higher compensation for 33,387 sq. m of non‑agricultural land acquired by the Gujarat Housing Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court had awarded Rs.45 per sq. m, which the High Court enhanced to Rs.53 per sq. m, but the appellant argued that these amounts were far below the

KALI CHARAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 89826 November 2024Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the Uttar Pradesh government and YEIDA for the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway and adjoining parcels. The landowners challenged the use of the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguin

NIRMITI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 26525 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a 50,138 sq.ft. plot in Amravati that had been reserved for a private school under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1967. The original owners served a purchase notice under Section 49 in 2006, which was confirmed in 2007, but the authorities failed to acquire the land within the on

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

BARLA RAM REDDYversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

2025 INSC 53122 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined three separate land acquisitions in Narsingi and Poppalguda made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Outer Ring Road project. The High Court had enhanced compensation to INR 1.35 crore per acre by relying on post‑notification auction sales of the Golden Mile project, and also granted

HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2024 INSC 79721 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for 302.75 acres of land acquired by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market value should reflect the land's strategic location and potential. The High Court had restored the lower award given by the Land Acquisition Collector

SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMITversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2025 INSC 52121 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sumitraben Gamit, owned land in Tapi district of Gujarat, part of which was used for a canal without any acquisition proceeding or compensation. The Gujarat High Court held that the market value of the land should be fixed as of 1 January 2014, the date of commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, rather t

M/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.versusMAST RAM & ORS.

2024 INSC 70920 September 2024Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 56.14 bighas of land for a safety zone around a cement plant, where the original award of compensation was paid by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) and a supplementary award was later issued. The key issue was whether the liability for the supplementar

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERSversusAALAMGIR & OTHERS

2025 INSC 40718 March 2025Disposed off

The State of Haryana appealed against several Punjab and Haryana High Court orders that had set aside land acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following writ petitions by land owners and subsequent purchasers. The petitioners sought relief under Section 24(2) of th

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusM/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.

2024 INSC 45517 May 2024

The Supreme Court examined a massive batch of land‑acquisition disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi and its agencies versus private landowners, notably M/s BSK Realtors LLP. The core issues were whether the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority in the first round barred other authorities from filing

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 45617 May 2024Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued that subsequent judici

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS

2024 INSC 435416 May 2024Dismissed

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation claimed it had acquired the land of Bimal Kumar Shah under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which it argued gave it power to acquire land for streets and parks. The High Court held that Section 352 does not confer a power of compulsory acquisition and set asi

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusNIRMALA DEVI

2025 INSC 84314 July 2025

The case concerned the allotment of residential and commercial plots to land owners (oustees) whose land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1992 for a residential development project. The oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act seeking mandatory injunctions to comp

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 99313 December 2024Dismissed

The Urban Improvement Trust (the appellant) sought to acquire land in Nangli Kota and Moongaska villages under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The respondents challenged the acquisition, alleging procedural defects: failure to serve individual notices under s.52(2), premature possession before compensation w

DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 41513 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired in 1976‑77 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no compensation was ever paid. After repeatedly seeking payment, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a single High Court judge on the ground of a 42‑year delay. The Division Bench of the High Court then directe

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNLversusSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 20812 March 2024Disposed off

The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (Corporation) sought compensation for about 13,000 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for several water and irrigation projects. The Karnataka High Court had enhanced compensation amounts in a series of judgments, but the Supreme Court found that the High C

KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50510 July 2024

The appellant, owner of a 1.25‑lac‑sq‑ft land in Akola, challenged the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a flood‑protection wall, contending that the land was not wholly within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’ and that the market value should be based on arm‑length transactions.

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50810 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) sought to acquire 83.761 hectares of land for industrial development, issuing a Section 4 notification in 2013. Several landowners filed objections under Section 5A, claiming their lands were "abadi" and should be exempt, but the Collector dismissed the objections

PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)

2024 INSC 2868 April 2024Dismissed

Sixteen claimants filed a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation on land acquired in 1989. Three claimants, including Pathapati Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the reference and their heirs were not impleaded. After the reference was dismissed in 1999, the heirs of the deceased claiman

RAM KISHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2025 INSC 4413 April 2025Disposed off

The appellants, landowners in Dharuhera village, Haryana, challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired under a 2008 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that it should be enhanced to match the higher compensation granted for adjoining villages (Malpura and Kapriwas) acquired under a l

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 1463 February 2025Dismissed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification on whether the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which mandated payment of solatium and interest to landowners whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act, should operate only prospectiv

1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversus1. SMT. RATHNAMMA 2. SRI G ARVIND 3. SMT. RADHAMMA

2025 INSC 3453 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land from the respondents, who voluntarily surrendered it on 31 May 2001 under the Incentive Rules of 1989. All acquisition formalities, including compensation, were completed before the Amended Incentive Rules came into force on 27 November 2002. The respondents filed

BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERSversusGOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 31 January 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased residential plots in Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997, which were later acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003. Although possession was taken in 2005, no compensation award was made until a Special Land Acquisit

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search