Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

525 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSHEELA RAMCHANDRA TIKHE

2018 INSC 102831 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) acquired 44.61 acres of land from Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe for a drainage scheme and, under a 1968 board resolution, offered to re‑allot the land on lease. Tikhe applied for the entire parcel in 1975; after negotiations, NIT allotted only 24 acres in 1982 and retained the remaining 20.

KEDAR NATH YADAVversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2016 INSC 63931 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of about 1,000 acres of land in Singur, West Bengal for Tata Motors' small‑car project. The Court held that the acquisition was made at the instance of a private company, not for a public purpose, and that the State failed to follow the mandatory procedures under Part VII of t

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 119731 August 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land in 1986 and an award for compensation was passed, but the compensation was never paid to the landowners. DDA paid the amount to the Land Acquisition Collector in 2002, and in December 2013 the amount was deposited in Court without interest. The issue before the Suprem

RANJIT SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2014 INSC 98831 July 2014Disposed off

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired by the State of Haryana under five notifications dated between 1980 and 1983, seeking enhancement of the market value. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana, they argued that the market values fixed in

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

KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS.versusTHE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2022 INSC 105530 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners, challenged the High Court's order allowing the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) to withdraw Rs 1,37,50,547 that it had deposited on 20 March 2018 as part of the compensation awarded in a land‑acquisition case. The dispute centred on whether the Supreme Court’s order of 29 

A.P. HOUSING BOARDversusK. MANOHAR REDDY & ORS.

2010 INSC 66030 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board appealed against the High Court’s order that increased the market value of 84 acres of agricultural land to Rs. 75 per square yard and then deducted one‑third for development charges. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of sale deeds (exhibits A1‑A9) executed before the acquisition

IYASAMY & ANR.versusSPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LANO ACQUISITION

2010 INSC 66230 September 2010Disposed off

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the compensation was fixed by the Reference Court at Rs 6 per square foot after a 1/3 deduction for development charges. The Madras High Court upheld this amount and rejected the claim for interest on solatium under s.23(2) and additional compen

SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 55530 August 2010Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire agricultural land belonging to a Hindu joint family under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The appellants challenged the acquisition, contending that each coparcener's share should

PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA&ANR.

2015 INSC 53630 July 2015Disposed off

The State of Karnataka acquired agricultural land for industrial development under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, and transferred it to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), which later allotted the land to Ultra Tech Cement Ltd on a lease basis. The landowners sought compensati

BANKATLALversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

2014 INSC 97730 June 2014Dismissed

The appellant challenged land acquisition of 10.80 acres undertaken under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966. An award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1968, later set aside by the High Court in 1974 only on compensation grounds. While the proceedings were pending, Section 11A of the Land Acquisit

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusM/S. JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS.ETC.

2014 INSC 42930 June 2014Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to recover dues of M/s Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. arising from arrears, loans and other liabilities incurred before the company's acquisition under the U.P. State Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The District Collector had adjusted compensation payable for land acquisition aga

SUKHBIRversusAJIT SINGH

2021 INSC 27930 April 2021Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff paid Rs.31.5 lakh of the Rs.32 lakh purchase price for land but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff sued for specific performance, and the trial court ordered the defendant to execute the deed and receive the balance Rs.50,000. Before the decree was final, the land was acquired by

DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.versusKIDARNATH MOHINDERNATH & ANR,

2017 INSC 29330 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Administration issued a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire lands in several villages, carving out an exception for lands where building plans had been sanctioned before 5 Nov 1980. Respondent Kidarnath Mohindernath claimed his land was exempt because a building plan was san

PREM CHAND & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2010 INSC 18130 March 2010Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Prem Chand and others against a Delhi High Court award of Rs 39,300 per bigha as compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the High Court had denied the benefit under Section 23(1A). The Court held that, because the award was made after 30 April 1

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

2016 INSC 107829 November 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings against the petitioners had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The DDA argued that the petit

RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMAREversusINDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 107529 November 2016Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined challenges by landowners to the Municipal Corporations of Bhopal and Indore who, under Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, issued notices to remove or set back building portions projecting beyond the regular line of a public street for a Bus Rapid Transit System

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2016 INSC 107929 November 2016Disposed off

The appellants, landowners whose properties were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed multiple civil appeals seeking compensation. The Supreme Court noted that the factual matrix of each appeal—location of the land, acquisition notifications, and prior compensation determinations—mirrored earlier landma

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusKARTAR SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.

2012 INSC 54929 November 2012Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the reference court enhanced compensation in 1980, awarding 15% solatium and 6% interest. After the 1984 amendment to the Act, the landowners filed applications under CPC sections 151 and 152 in 1989 seeking the enhanced benefits of the amended

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAIversusM. MEIYAPPAN AND ORS.

2010 INSC 75429 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Government acquired land in 1979 for low‑income housing and awarded compensation on 28 April 1982. The land owners (respondents Nos. 1‑17) filed a writ petition in December 1997, more than 15 years after the award, challenging the acquisition. The Madras High Court entertained the petition, relying on an

MUNUSAMYversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2021 INSC 57229 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant owned 1.80 acres of land in Anniyalam, Tamil Nadu, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector initially fixed compensation at Rs 16,000 per acre, but the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 2,183.33 per acre, relying on a sale deed dated 11‑01‑1990 in which the landowner sold a 5

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICERversusGURAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.

2015 INSC 70829 September 2015Dismissed

The deceased respondent Gurappa filed a suit in 1984 (O.S. No. 255) for declaration of title which was dismissed for lack of proper parties and proof of possession. He later filed another suit in 1993 (O.S. No. 39) seeking declaration of title, possession, injunction and correction of revenue records. The Municipal Cou

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusNARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN & ANR.

2011 INSC 72329 September 2011Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought to abandon land acquisition of 284.03 hectares in five villages, prompting Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) to argue that the abandonment order was void because the land had already been taken into possession. The Supreme Court, after a spot inspection ordered by it, found that the tenure

M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusG. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 72629 September 2011Dismissed

The Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation acquired 37 acres of land for a golf‑cum‑hotel resort under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but later transferred portions of the land to private entities. Several landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging fraud and diversion of public purpose. The High Court, a

AMARJIT SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2010 INSC 65629 September 2010Dismissed

The case concerned the expansion of the SAS (Nagar) Mohali township, where land for sectors 81, 88 and 89 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State of Punjab invoked Section 178(2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 to exempt the acquired land from the provisions of Se

SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD.versusVEMUGANTI RAMAKRISHAN RAO & ORS.

2013 INSC 57829 August 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the time taken to obtain a certified copy of a High Court order vacating a stay could be excluded from the two‑year period prescribed under Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for making an award. The Court held that Section 11‑A only excludes the period during which the ac

PATASI DEVIversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2012 INSC 35829 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Patasi Devi owned a 14-kanal plot on which she had constructed a house before the Haryana Government issued a Section 4 notification on 15‑12‑2006 for acquiring land for the development of Sector 36, Rohtak. The land was later declared acquired under Section 6 and an award was passed on 9‑12‑2009, after which the State

GREATER NOLDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITYversusSAVJTRI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2016 INSC 46729 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the acquisition of land in Village Chhapraula for planned industrial development by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners challenged the validity of the notifications invoking the urgency clause under Sections 4(1) and 6, alle

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. NAIDU & ORS.

2016 INSC 46229 June 2016Directions issued

The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority acquired land for road widening under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking possession on 20 February 1982 and depositing compensation with the court. The landowners repeatedly requested withdrawal of the acquisition, leading to a series of government orders that withdrew

PRAHLAD SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 34429 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land in Haryana was notified for acquisition in 2002 and an award was passed in 2004 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They filed writ petitions alleging that the land fell within a green belt under the Regional Plan 2001, that the acquisition violated the National Capital Region Planning Board Act,

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJAN SOOD & ORS.

2022 INSC 36229 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabili

GOA FOUNDATION & ANR.versusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.

2016 INSC 28129 March 2016Dismissed

The State of Goa acquired land for a tourism project and entered into an agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which contained a clause prohibiting any construction on the acquired land. The hotel company later constructed a building, leading the Bombay High Court to order demolition, an order a

MOHANDAS AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 10529 January 2020Dismissed

The appellants, owners of several plots in Gondia, challenged the reservation of their land for a shopping complex and vegetable market under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The original Development Plan came into force on 24‑08‑1984, and a declaration under Section 126(4) was published on 03‑09‑1

SARASWATI DEVI (D) BY LR.versusDELHI DEVT. AUTHORITY & ORS.

2013 INSC 6529 January 2013Dismissed

The case concerned a 5‑bigha parcel of land that was an evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and later put up for public auction. The appellant’s husband was the highest bidder in 1958, received provisional possession in 1960, but th

HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAGHUBIR SINGH

2010 INSC 6829 January 2010Disposed off

The Haridwar Development Authority acquired about 38.6 bighas of contiguous village land for a housing colony. The Collector awarded compensation using a three‑belt method with varying rates, which the Reference Court reduced to two belts, and the High Court further replaced with a uniform rate of Rs.26.25 per sq.ft. T

GOJER BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 79128 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Gojer Brothers Private Limited had leased land to a school which, after a prolonged eviction suit, continued to occupy the premises. The State of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the land for the school, and the appellant filed objections under Section 5A

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

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANRversusB. R. MURALIDHAR & ORS.

2022 INSC 76128 July 2022Disposed off

The State of Karnataka issued a land acquisition notification under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. The petitioners challenged the notification on grounds of inadequate consideration of objections, alleged lapse of the acquisition process, and the constitutionality of Secti

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2022 INSC 76228 July 2022Directions issued

The Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) initiated compulsory land acquisition under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 without a housing scheme having been sanctioned under Section 24(2). Petitioners argued that such acquisition was void for lack of a sanctioned scheme, relying on earlier decisions in Moh

ANAND SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2010 INSC 44328 July 2010Dismissed

The Gorakhpur Development Authority (GOA) sought to acquire land for a residential colony and, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invoked the urgency clause of Section 17(4) to dispense with the mandatory Section 5A enquiry. The appellants, land owners, challenged the validity of this dispensation, arguing that no m

GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANRversusDINESH KUMAR & ANR

2023 INSC 46728 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared a land acquisition to have "deemed lapse" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court had held that

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusREENA SURI AND ORS.

2016 INSC 35228 April 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and passed awards, but the Collector did not take physical possession of the land within five years before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettl

BHULE RAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2014 INSC 22228 March 2014Dismissed

The appellant Bhule Ram challenged the compensation awarded for his land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market value should be Rs 10,00,000 per acre. The award was initially Rs 4,65,000 per acre, later enhanced to Rs 5,99,850 by the reference court and to Rs 6,51,000 by the High Court.

RAJA RAM & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2014 INSC 22228 March 2014Dismissed

The case concerned appeals and special leave petitions filed by Raja Ram and others challenging the award of compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of the amount payable. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that the compensation awarded by the acquiring au

ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTDversusGILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. ETC.

2021 INSC 4328 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) sought to acquire land of Gillapukri Tea Company for a plastic park. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in 2008‑2009 and the award and estimate were sent to the State Government on 30‑Jan‑2010. The Government approved th

M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 81627 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Magnum Promoters Ltd., the owner of land in Delhi, challenged acquisition notifications issued under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that no physical possession was taken and compensation was not paid, invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re

BIJENDER & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2017 INSC 105827 October 2017Case Partly allowed

The case concerned the acquisition of over 300 acres of land in Haryana for residential and commercial development under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector determined compensation using the judicially recognised Belting System, fixing Rs 33 lakh per acre for land within two acres of the road and Rs 18 lakh p

D. HANUMANTH SA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2010 INSC 74527 October 2010Disposed off

The State of Karnataka issued preliminary and final notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire 3 acres 34 guntas in Kengeri for the construction of an approach road, a workshop and residential quarters for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, asserting a public purpose.

ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PARTNERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 96127 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Balaji Associates, a partnership firm, owned land in Morshi that was reserved for a shopping centre and garden under the final development plan effective from 01‑09‑2005. After the ten‑year period elapsed, the firm served a first notice on 13‑07‑2015 and a second notice on 31‑08‑2015 under Section 127 of the Maharashtr

MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (REGO.), FARIDKOT & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2012 INSC 19027 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for 33 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants argued that the reference court erred by averaging several sale exemplars instead of using the highest bona‑fide transaction (Exhibit A‑61) and by not granting interest on solatium and

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

MULCHAND KHANUMAL KHATRIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2012 INSC 15127 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a joint owner of land in Palanpur, Gujarat, challenged a government acquisition of his property and obtained interim relief from the Gujarat High Court. While the proceedings were pending, the Land Acquisition Act was amended in 1984 inserting Section 11A, which mandates that an award be made within two

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusVIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS.

2019 INSC 28727 February 2019Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the proviso in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to determine whether it applies to sub‑section 24(1)(b) or to 24(2). The petitioners (Delhi Development Authority) sought to conti

NCT OF DELHI AND ORSversusJAGJIT SINGH AND ORS.

2015 INSC 17927 February 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It held that an acquisition proceeding is deemed to have lapsed when an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed at leas

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHARKISHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 7627 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority acquired land of several owners in 1990‑1992 using the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The owners challenged the acquisition in the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld the acquisition while allow

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

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusJASVIR SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 82626 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their lands under the 1981 notifications of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and seeking fresh notifications and higher compensation. The High Court had repeatedly summoned senior state officials—Principal Secretaries of Public

M/S. VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVESOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2019 INSC 95226 August 2019Disposed off

The appellant, a cooperative housing society, was allotted 78 acres 16 guntas of land by the Karnataka Government for a housing layout, including 5 acres 33 guntas in Survey No.30. Respondent No.3, claiming ownership of that portion, challenged the acquisition and later sought de‑notification of 3 acres 5 guntas under

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2011 INSC 51626 July 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Narmada Bachao Andolan, challenged the amendment dated 7 June 1991 to Clause 5.1 of the 1991 Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy for the Upper Beda dam project in Madhya Pradesh, alleging it was ultra vires, arbitrary and violated the right of oustees to land in lieu of acquisition. The petition

KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORSversusTHE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

2022 INSC 47826 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of farmers, allowed the Sulthan Bathery Panchayat (later a municipality) to use a portion of their agricultural land for a bypass road on the promise of compensation, which was never paid. No formal acquisition, transfer, or documented voluntary surrender was produced by the Panchayat or the Pub

RAMESH CHAND AND ORS.versusM/S. TANMAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 40226 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (land owners) entered into five sale agreements with Mis. Tanmay Developers, each involving payment of earnest money. The developer failed to obtain sale deeds within the stipulated time, leading the land owners to forfeit the earnest money. After a land acquisition notification in 2008, the parties file

BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDAversusMOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 33126 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State Government acquired 103 bighas of land in Banda district for the Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification on 8‑9‑1998 and a declaration on 7‑9‑1999. The acquisition was completed with possession handed over to the Banda Development Authority (BDA) on 30‑6‑200

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusKARIGOWDA & ORS.

2010 INSC 24226 April 2010Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for land compulsorily acquired for the Hemavathi Dam project, where claimants cultivated mulberry for sericulture. The lower courts had enhanced compensation by treating silk cocoons as an agricultural product and using a capitalization method, also granting interest

M/S. MODEL ECONOMIC TOWNSHIP LTD.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

2019 INSC 26926 February 2019Dismissed

The case concerns a land acquisition of 136 acres where the award initially fixed compensation at Rs 25 lakh per acre. The Reference Court later raised it to Rs 41.81 lakh per acre, but the petitioner (M/s Model Economic Township Ltd., holding 15 acres) did not file a reference application. It subsequently filed an app

GUJARAT MINERAL DEV. CORPN.versusRAM SANG BHAILALBHAI &ANR.

2015 INSC 16826 February 2015Dismissed

The Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) acquired land in villages Bhuri and Rajpardi for a lignite project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at low rates, which were later increased by the Reference Court. The High Court, noting that the a

M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 16226 February 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether acquisitions made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It held that a declaration of lapse requires a clear factual finding t

DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONversusANJANAPPA & ANR.

2014 INSC 14526 February 2014Dismissed

The Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) acquired a large tract of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, via notifications in 1993 and 1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially valued the land at Rs. 60,000 per acre, but the Reference Court, on a Section 18 application, awarded Rs. 3.15 la

BHAGWAN DAS & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

2010 INSC 12726 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired for a market yard and an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14 March 2007, but they were not served notice of the award until 25 October 2007 and only became aware of its contents on 16 November 2007. They filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition A

JITENDRA SINGHversusMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.

2019 INSC 128025 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Jitendra Singh, a resident of village Saini, challenged the allotment of two village ponds (recorded as ‘pokhar’ in revenue records) to private industrialist Sharp Enterprises by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA). The ponds had been leased to Sharp in 2012, but GNIDA relied on a 2016 Government

SARUP SINGH AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 81625 November 2010Dismissed

The appellants sought enhanced solatium (30% instead of 15%) and higher interest rates (9% for the first year and 15% thereafter) under the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, claiming that the amendment should apply to their awards which were finalized before the amendment came into force. The Supreme Court ex

RAJ PAL SINGHversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK

2020 INSC 50525 August 2020Dismissed

The appellant owned land that was leased to a college; the lease expired in 1967 and the Haryana Government issued a notification for compulsory acquisition on 15 May 1968, later making an award on 29 September 1970. The dispute centered on when capital gains under Section 45 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961 accrued – wheth

UNION OF INDIAversusDYAGALA DEVAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 63825 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) acquired about 101 acres of land for a railway line under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed a low per‑acre value, which was challenged, leading the Civil Court (Reference Court) to determine a market value of Rs 21,29,600 per acre an

MAY GEORGEversusSPECIAL TAHSILDAR & ORS.

2010 INSC 33125 May 2010Dismissed

May George challenged the award of acquisition of her 33‑cent parcel under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that she never received the notice required under Section 9(3). The High Court dismissed her writ petition but allowed her to file an application under Section 18. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined wh

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.

2022 INSC 47225 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2003, followed by a declaration in 2004 and an award in 2005 for land needed for a road project. The respondents obtained interim stay orders that prevented DDA from taking possession, and later filed a writ petition und

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusSHEO NARAIN KUSHWAHA & ORS.

2011 INSC 32925 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, sought to acquire land belonging to the respondents and challenged the Reference Court's award of Rs.1,10,250 per bigha as compensation, up from Rs.10,250 per bigha. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal summarily without reasons, invoking Order 41 Rule 11 of the CP

MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

2015 INSC 26125 March 2015Case Partly allowed

The appellants challenged two land acquisition notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the construction of a road (Missing Link‑II) and a residential urban estate in Ludhiana. They argued that a large portion of the land was intended for commercial development, a purpose not disclosed in the notif

SHEELA JAWARLAL NAGORI & ANR.versusKANTILAL NATHMAL BALDOTA & ORS.

2014 INSC 20525 March 2014Dismissed

The landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenants occupying an open plot in Pune. The tenants contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation had acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer had divested the landlord of any right, title or intere

SIEL FOODS & FERTILIZERS INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 16825 March 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court reviewed petitions filed by polluting industries that had been ordered to surrender portions of their land for green belts after relocation from Delhi. The petitioners argued that the Delhi Development Authority (ODA) must acquire the surrendered land under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Authorit

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

MAYA DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2018 INSC 6625 January 2018Case Partly allowed

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired by the Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had used a post‑notification sale deed (dated 27‑12‑1988) as an exemplar and applied a 67.5% deduction for development charges, arriving at Rs.2,19,413

SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2018 INSC 6525 January 2018Matter referred to larger bench

The State of Haryana acquired about 520 acres of land spread across 15 villages for an expressway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed a uniform compensation rate of Rs.12,50,000 per acre, which was later enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.43,17,841 per acre. Both the landowners a

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSHIV DUTT SHARMA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 123124 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared a land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid, despite the High Court finding that posse

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusRADHESHYAM & ORS

2022 INSC 122824 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought to acquire 38.178 hectares of land in Village Sala for rehabilitation of persons displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation based on low market values, which the landowners challenged, leading the Reference Court to re‑determine ma

JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.versusLT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2019 INSC 118524 October 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a land acquisition proceeding initiated under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a Vasant Kunj residential scheme, where Jagjiwan Cooperative Group Housing Society claimed ownership of 42 bighas 16 biswas of land in Mehrauli, Delhi. The High Court had upheld the acquisition notif

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRADIP KUMAR GHOSH & OTHERS

2017 INSC 104524 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) appealed against a Division Bench order that quashed its acquisition of a flat requisitioned under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The property had been under requisition since 1979 and the High Court, in 1993, directed the Land Acquisi

SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAMversusRAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2018 INSC 85824 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The case concerned whether the heirs of a former jagirdar could claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for land that had already vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the 1953 Abolition Act and for which compensation had been paid under both the Abolition Act and the 1972 Ceiling Act. The Supreme Cou

M. VENKATESH AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2015 INSC 102724 September 2015Disposed off

The plaintiffs, M. Venkatesh and others, claimed ownership of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BOA) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, asserting settled possession and adverse possession of the vacant parcels after demolition of structures. BOA contended that the land vested in it following the

TATA STEEL LTD.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

2015 INSC 102824 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar (later Jharkhand) granted Tata Steel 350 acres of land in 1969 (Grant‑I) for a 99‑year lease, requiring use of the land for a specified industrial purpose within one year. Tata Steel utilized about 200 acres for its alloy and steel plants. In 1973 the State transferred 1,266 acres to the Bihar Indust

M/S AJAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSATYANARAYAN SOMANI AND ORS.

2017 INSC 80624 August 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the renewal of a 30‑year lease granted by the Ujjain Development Authority (UDA) to Mis Ajar Enterprises Private Limited (Ajar) after the leasehold interest was acquired from the liquidated IISCO. The Court held that Rule 24 and Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bh

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .versusMAHARANI BISWAL AND ORS.

2011 INSC 60624 August 2011Disposed off

The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation of Rs.3,100 per acre for land acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners challenged this amount; the reference court raised it to Rs.10,000 per acre, and the High Court further increased it to Rs.75,000 per acre. The Supreme Court h

CHAKASversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2011 INSC 60724 August 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the compensation payable to land owners whose 550.03 acres were acquired by the State of Punjab for an industrial focal point. It held that the appropriate market value (base price) must be determined using the sale deed Ext. P.8, which was a genuine transaction close to the Section 4 notific

MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.versusUGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2011 INSC 60824 August 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a review petition challenging its earlier order that quashed an allotment of land made by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State Government's land policy allowed aggrieved persons to receive develop

RAMSINGBHAI (RAMSANGBHAI) JERAMBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 40524 April 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Ramsingbai, filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of a judgment of the Gujarat High Court rendered under Section 54 of the Act. The central issue was whether an appellate court judgment qualifies as an "award" for the

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusVIJAY GUPTA & ORS

2023 INSC 29724 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, based on a writ petition filed by the subseq

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

2023 INSC 17024 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi government appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed, thereby directing compensation under the 2013 Act. The land in question had already been taken into physical possession by the Irrigation and Flood Control Board for the construction

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusJAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.

2023 INSC 16624 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Land Acquisition Collector appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition proceedings for 15 bighas 18 biswa of land in Wazirabad village to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORSversusRAJIV AND ANR.

2023 INSC 15924 February 2023Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh used land for a road in 1996 without acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying compensation. The landowners filed a writ petition in 2016 seeking compensation and acquisition; the Single Judge ordered the State to initiate acquisition. The State appealed, and the

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusNIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. ETC

2023 INSC 16724 February 2023Disposed off

The State of Haryana had acquired 46.49 acres of land in 1987 for residential and commercial development. Over time most of the land was released, but small parcels remained under acquisition, prompting the original landowners to file writ petitions seeking release on parity with others. The High Court quashed the acqu

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 16524 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of certain lands in 1981 and the compensation due to the owners was sent to the Revenue Department due to a dispute. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusAMIT JAIN & ORS

2023 INSC 16924 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of certain lands as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. Th

SANGUNTHALA (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusSPECIAL TEHSILDAR (L.A.) & ORS.

2010 INSC 11924 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded for 196 acres of land acquired for the expansion of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants argued that the land, although used agriculturally, was a potential house site and should be valued at Rs 1,75,000 per acre, as determi

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusHARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI & ORS.

2014 INSC 5324 January 2014Dismissed

The Pune Municipal Corporation initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification in 2004, a declaration in 2005 and making an award on 31 January 2008. The award was not paid to the landowners nor deposited in court; the compensation amount was instead placed in the gov

HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2021 INSC 77423 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land for a residential‑commercial scheme, arguing that the State had improperly invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the hearing mandated by Section 5A. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition, but on

ANIL KUMAR SOTIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)

2021 INSC 77923 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land in the village of Rawali was acquired by a notification dated 16‑05‑1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court fixed compensation at Rs 7,100 per acre, whereas the appellants contended that they were entitled to Rs 15,402 per acre, the amount awarded by a Reference Court

RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWATversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 81623 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a farmer, challenged the acquisition of his agricultural land by the State of Haryana, alleging that the statutory notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not properly published, he was denied a hearing, and that possession of his land was never actually taken because crops were standing at the

SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]versusMANOHAR LAL & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 118423 October 2019

The Supreme Court considered an application for recusal of Justice Arun Mishra, who had earlier expressed an opinion on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in a three‑Judge Bench. The matter was referred to a five‑Judge Constituti

AJAY PAL SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 53123 September 2021Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, original landowners of two parcels acquired in 1976 for the NOIDA project, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Courts (Rs 4.628 and Rs 6 per square yard) and sought enhancement to Rs 297 per square yard, relying on the High Court's decision in Mangu v. State of U.P. and the earlier jud

STATE OF HARYANA& ORS.versusM/S. VINOD OIL& GENERAL MILLS &ANR.

2014 INSC 66723 September 2014Disposed off

The respondents, a partnership that set up an industrial unit in 1981, were initially excluded from a 1992 land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In 2004 the State of Haryana re‑issued acquisition notifications for two strips of their land to develop a residential‑commercial sector. The High Court quash

HIRABAI & ORS.versusL.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.

2010 INSC 63823 September 2010Dismissed

The Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire irrigated and dry lands belonging to Hirabai and others for a lift irrigation project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs.15,000 per acre for irrigated land and Rs.1

DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2011 INSC 60223 August 2011Case Allowed

The petitioners challenged two notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh for acquiring land to develop a Leather City Project aimed at relocating polluting bone mills. The Court examined whether the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 18 December 2007, was made within the one‑year li

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

DAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 42123 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants, owners of a parcel of land in Surat, challenged the State of Gujarat's acquisition of the land for a primary school, alleging procedural defects under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They claimed no hearing under Section 5A, no locality publication under Section 6(2), the award under Section 11A was bey

K. DEVAKIMMA & ORS.versusTIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS & ANR.

2015 INSC 35023 April 2015Case Partly allowed

The appellants, small shop‑owners in Tirumala, challenged the compensation awarded for their land acquired by the State for the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court had fixed a market value of Rs.80‑100 per square foot based on escalation of values of adjacent l

LAXMIKANT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2022 INSC 33623 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants owned land that had been reserved for a playground in a Development Plan published in 2002 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. After the statutory ten‑year period elapsed, they served a notice under Section 127 seeking acquisition, but the authorities failed to act. The High Court

U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHADversusASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS.

2021 INSC 20123 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad acquired over 1,200 acres of land under a notification dated 26‑06‑1982 (s.28 of the Uttar Pradesh Act, equivalent to s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act). The landowners challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court (Rs.120 per square yard) and the High Court’s enhan

IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES & ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF GOA & ANR.

2011 INSC 15123 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In a land acquisition proceeding, the government paid compensation by issuing cheques to four owners, two of which remained uncollected and were subsequently deposited in the State's revenue account and utilized. The owners filed an execution application seeking the balance amount and interest, arguing that under Secti

BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2011 INSC 15423 February 2011Dismissed

The appellants owned 6.6 acres of land in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, which was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 through notifications under Sections 4 and 6. They challenged the acquisition on two grounds: that they were not afforded a hearing under Section 5‑A before their objections were decide

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR.versusISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 122022 November 2022Disposed off

The land of about 3.23 guntas in Attapur village was acquired in 1981 for the extension of Nehru Zoological Park. The initial award by the Land Acquisition Officer paid only Rs 6 per sq yard. After repeated litigation, the Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs 250 per sq yard with solatium and interest. The High

CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

2011 INSC 81522 November 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the quantum of deductions to be made from the market value of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land acquired for a residential layout, where the market value was derived from a sale of a small, fully developed plot. The Court clarified that deductions for development must be split in

CHIMANLAL KUBERDAS MODI (D) BY LRS.versusGUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. & ORS.

2010 INSC 72422 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed determining a market value. The appellant challenged the award, and the reference court enhanced the market value, granted a 30% solatium, a 12% annual increase, and interest of 9% (later 15%) on the total amount. While the e

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHERversusMAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 89722 September 2016Disposed off

The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2003, with an award passed in 2006. No compensation was paid nor possession taken before the five‑year cut‑off preceding the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

SHRI NASHIK PANCHAVATI PANJARPOL TRUST AND ORS.versusTHE CHAIRMAN AND ANR.

2023 INSC 75022 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant‑trust owned lands in Nashik that were acquired by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award under Section 11 was made on 12 January 1996, but the parties entered into consent terms on 20 October 1997, agreeing that the market value would be fixed as of 17 Dec

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL & ORS.

2022 INSC 84922 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land in question had been taken over by the East Delhi Municipal Corporati

BASAWARAJ & ANR.versusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2013 INSC 55122 August 2013Dismissed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, after receiving an award, filed references for enhanced compensation. Dissatisfied with the award, they filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act in the High Court on 16 August 2007, more than five years after the award, a

RANVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECY. & ORS.

2016 INSC 54822 July 2016Dismissed

The appellant's land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He entered into a consent agreement under the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 and accepted the full compensation on the same day without

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBATTI & ORS

2023 INSC 27622 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority appealed against a Delhi High Court order that held the acquisition of a 3,500‑hectare parcel of land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. T

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.versusN. SAVITHA

2022 INSC 33022 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired land in 2008 for the improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary under a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition award fixed a market value of Rs 21,488 per guntha, which the Reference Court later enhanced to Rs 30,49,200 per acre. The landowner appealed, and the Kar

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALOREversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2022 INSC 32522 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment that the land acquisition proceedings for its mega‑market project had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The

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

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.

2024 INSC 79621 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) sought to acquire 952.18 acres of land in Panchkula for a mixed‑use development, but the landowners objected under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming exemption for fruit trees and alleging that their structures were authorized. The High Court quashed th

RAMESHWAR AND ORSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 73821 July 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of the term "transfer" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that it includes development and collaboration agreements and licences issued during the suspect period (27‑08‑2004 to 29‑01‑2010). It examined numerous applications concerning projects such as Green Heights, Godr

NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusDIVESH BHUTANI & ORS.

2022 INSC 73721 July 2022Disposed off

The case concerned several civil appeals and writ petitions challenging National Green Tribunal orders that restrained non‑forest activities on lands in three villages of Faridabad district, Haryana, on the ground that these lands were covered by special orders issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act

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

V. RAMAKRISHNA RAOversusSINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 32321 April 2011Case Allowed

The appellant, V. Ramakrishna Rao, filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking correction of the market value and compensation awarded for land acquisition. The Supreme Court had earlier allowed the appeal, reversing the Andhra Pradesh High Court and holding the Section 28A(3) ap

UDHO DASSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 22821 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the compensation payable for 162.5 acres of land acquired in 1990 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a housing project in Sonepat, Haryana. The Collector initially awarded Rs 2 lakh per acre, which was later enhanced by the reference court and the High Court using a belting method. The

RAM DHARI JINDAL MEMORIAL TRUSTversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 14121 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for the Rohini Residential Scheme, invoking the urgency provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(4) and directing that the objection provisions of Section 5A would not apply. The landowner, Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust, challen

SATISH KUMAR GUPTA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

2017 INSC 16621 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana acquired large tracts of land for an industrial model township, vesting the land in the State after the Collector’s award. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) later allotted part of this land to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) under a deed that required the allottee to pay a

CHANABASAPPAversusKARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 6421 January 2020Disposed off

The appellant claimed that his land was submerged in 1991 due to the Malprabha Reservoir project and therefore sought damages and interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from that date. The High Court enhanced compensation but limited interest to the date of award (23 July 2009), rejecting the claim

GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2015 INSC 5921 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. owned land in Vikhroli that was reserved in the 1991 Development Plan for acquisition by the Ministry of Railways to lay additional tracks. The reservation required acquisition within ten years or, failing that, the landowner could serve a notice and, if no acquisition commenced wi

MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFSversusSHAIKH YUSUF BHAI CHAWLA & ORS.

2022 INSC 112720 October 2022Case Partly allowed

The Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs was incorporated on 4 January 2002 and subsequently published lists of wakf properties on 13 November 2003 and 30 December 2004. Several Muslim public trusts challenged the Board’s constitution, the validity of the lists, and the applicability of Section 13(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995,

HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS.

2022 INSC 112220 October 2022Case Partly allowed

The land in Village Bhondsi, Gurgaon was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a liquefied petroleum gas plant. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs 5.30 lakh per acre for irrigated land and Rs 2 lakh for non‑irrigated land; the Reference Court fixed Rs 5.30 lakh for both. The High Court enhanc

JASPAL SINGH & OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 112620 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The lands in village Jharli, Jhajjar district, were acquired for the Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition collector initially awarded Rs.16,00,000 per acre, which the reference court enhanced to Rs.17,64,350 per acre. The High Court reduced the award back to Rs.16,00,000 per

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

SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2021 INSC 50120 September 2021Disposed off

The appellants' land in Bhoom, Maharashtra, was taken into possession by the State in 1984 and 1992 and later acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1999. The Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs.70 per square foot after a 20% deduction for development cost, based on a sale exemplar (Exhibit 30) of Rs.137

RAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 53420 August 2010Dismissed

The appellants challenged a fresh acquisition of their land in Mehrauli, Delhi, undertaken for the construction of the Chattarpur Metro Station. While the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 provides a special framework for metro projects, the government invoked the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisiti

FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABADversusDR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.

2022 INSC 61420 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Faizabad‑Ayodhya Development Authority acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Original landowners obtained interim stays that prevented the authority from issuing an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act for certain plots. When the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehab

AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusRAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 61420 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority appealed a Lucknow High Court order that had declared land acquisition proceedings for three plots to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation, though

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRAversusANEK SINGH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 61220 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Agra Development Authority (ADA) had taken possession of land and deposited compensation, but some owners refused to accept payment for a remaining portion. The Allahabad High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under sub‑section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparenc

SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRSversusUNION OF INDIA

2022 INSC 45020 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, original land owners, sought compensation for land acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court in 2001 enhanced compensation to Rs 2240 per sq. yard, relying on its own decision in Bhola Nath. The Supreme Court later set aside the Bhola Nath decision in 2010 and rema

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 14420 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landholders whose property was acquired by the Greater Noida Authority, challenged the classification of owners as "Pushtaini" and "Gair‑Pushtaini" which resulted in differential compensation. The Supreme Court held that the classification was not authorized by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Utta

MANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD & ANR.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 6120 January 2023Disposed off

The appellants owned a 10,034 sq. m. plot in Ahmedabad that had been under temporary acquisition by ONGC since 1996 for oil exploration. After purchasing the land in 2005, they were paid a nominal rent of Rs 24 per sq. m. per annum, later increased to Rs 30, and sought a writ to quash the temporary acquisition and rele

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 7320 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 1990 and a remaining portion in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondents filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Tr

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS

2023 INSC 7420 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusMANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.

2023 INSC 6420 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1964, with possession taken and compensation deposited by 1967. Respondent No.1, who was not the recorded owner, filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGI SINGH AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6620 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land (Khasra No. 28) on 21 March 2007 by drawing a panchnama and preparing a possession report under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners Bhagi Singh and others filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed un

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6220 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification dated 27‑06‑1996 and an award dated 22‑06‑1999. Possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31‑12‑2013 and handed over to the requisition agency, with a panchnama drawn at the time. Th

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusRATIRAM & ORS.

2023 INSC 7220 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of certain land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The land had been no

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VversusSHYAMO & ORS.

2023 INSC 7020 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with award in 1992 and possession taken in 2007. The original writ petitioner, Shyamo, claimed a one‑twelfth share but was not the recorded owner, and the High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAMBIR AND ORS

2023 INSC 6720 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 becau

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJESH DUA & ORS.

2023 INSC 6820 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land in 1964, passed the award in 1967 and took possession by drawing a panchnama, while depositing the compensation amount with the Reference Court the same year. In 2017 the original landowners filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition had lapsed under Section

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusKHAJAN SINGH & ANR.

2023 INSC 6520 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that held land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation was not paid, even though possession of the land h

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusASHA PRAKASH

2023 INSC 6920 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but compensation was not paid to the original landowners. A subsequent purchaser, respondent No.1, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had deemed to lapse under Section 24(

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusRATI RAM & ANR.

2023 INSC 7520 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings for a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying on the Pune Municipal

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2022 INSC 7820 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) continues to apply to land acquisitions undertaken under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) after the LA Act was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlemen

NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusDEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LA AND ANR.

2010 INSC 79219 November 2010Disposed off

The State of Gujarat acquired land in Mora village for a gas‑based thermal power project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land acquisition officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 3.50 per square metre, which was enhanced to Rs 20 by the reference court and further to Rs 22 by the High Court, while rejecting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANERversusGORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 93519 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerns three bighas of land in Bikaner purchased by Gordhan Dass and co‑owners in 1970, which the Urban Improvement Trust later claimed to have acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The Trust issued acquisition notices to the original khatedars recorded in the revenue records but not to t

THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATIONversusTHAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA

2023 INSC 94019 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Warehousing Corporation sought acquisition of 80 kanals of land in Naraingarh, Ambala, and the Land Acquisition Collector initially fixed compensation at Rs.72.31 per square yard based on market rates as of the 2000 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents filed a refe

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 99619 September 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which excludes the Land Acquisition Act's provisions on solatium and interest, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that solatium is an integral part of compensation for compulsory acquisition and that the 1997 amendmen

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusMOHIUDDIN MASOOD AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 91419 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and the Indo‑Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) sought to acquire about 72‑75 acres of land in Kanpur Nagar for a battalion headquarters, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensing with the enquiry required by Section 5A. The Allahabad High Court held that

NELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA W/O SRINIVASULUREDDYversusSPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, PODALAKUR AT NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH

2017 INSC 64219 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellant owned 0.15 acre of land with 45 three‑year‑old pomegranate trees that were acquired under a 1990 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award fixed the market value of each tree at Rs 65 and applied a multiplier of 2, later increased to 9 by the High Court, relying on a 1992 government order.

K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERSversusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)

2017 INSC 64519 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The appellants' agricultural land was acquired for the Telugu Ganga Project in 1992 and they were initially compensated Rs 50‑70 per lime tree and Rs 32 per pomegranate tree. They obtained a modest enhancement of the tree compensation from the reference court, but sought further increase before the High Court, filing t

FIDA HUSSAIN & ORS.versusMORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

2011 INSC 50119 July 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by land owners from the villages of Harthala and Mukkarrabpur who sought enhancement of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed modest rates, which were later enhanced by a reference court, but the High Court restored the origi

MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR.versusMATHIAS ORAM & ORS.

2010 INSC 40919 July 2010Hearing Adjourned

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., sought relief from an order of the Orissa High Court directing payment of compensation for lands acquired in 1987 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The lands, belonging to tribal owners, had never been compensated despite the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSUNIL KHATRI & ORS.

2022 INSC 60119 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had acquired land in Village Chattarpur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with notifications issued in 1980, declarations under Section 6 in 1985‑86 and an award in 1987. Numerous writ petitions challenged the acquisition, resulting in interim orders staying dispossession of th

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.

2023 INSC 39619 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)versusHARI CHAND AND ANR.

2023 INSC 39519 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Land Acquisition Collector appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not been paid. The High Court h

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASEversusMAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 43719 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The State Government, under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, acquired agricultural lands in village Bhoyar for the extension of a MIDC industrial estate. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation, which was enhanced by the Reference Court. The High Court reduced the awards, relying on a 1

NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusJAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2020 INSC 31519 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land leased for 20 years to the respondent, sought possession after the lease was deemed terminated for non‑payment of rent and after part of the land was de‑notified following acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent claimed a share of compensation for the unexpired lease te

STATE OF HARYANAversusEROS CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 6219 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire 129 kanals 14 marlas of land in Lakarpur, Faridabad for the expansion and systematic development of the Surajkund Tourist Complex, including a parking area. Earlier acquisition attempts in 1992 were dropped aft

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.AversusJ. SIVAPRAKASAM & ORS.

2010 INSC 78818 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Special Deputy Collector of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority sought to acquire 4.89 acres of land for the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, issuing a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and a final declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification was published

V. CHANDRASEKARAN & ANR.versusTHE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.

2012 INSC 40718 September 2012Dismissed

The case concerned land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where a Section 4 notification was issued in 1978 and a Section 6 declaration in 1981 covering a parcel of land (the suit land). The original tenure‑holders accepted compensation under protest, did not file any objection under Section 5A, and later t

M/S. DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2011 INSC 59018 August 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The case concerned the acquisition of abadi land in Gautam Budh Nagar for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State issued a notification invoking Section 17 (emergency powers) and took possession of the land on 4 February 2003 without, according to the appellants, p

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAVINDER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

2023 INSC 55818 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that had allowed a writ petition filed by Ravinder Kumar Jain, who purchased land in 2003, invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to claim that the e

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

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