Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

525 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 401–525.

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusNORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.

2015 INSC 7457 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana acquired land in 1973 for a sheet‑glass factory and conveyed it to Northern Indian Glass Industries Ltd. (NIGI) under a deed that prohibited sale without the State’s written permission and required construction of the factory within a stipulated period. NIGI failed to build the plant, sold portions

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusK.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 7987 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had undertaken a land acquisition scheme which was later challenged by several writ petitioners. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings, prompting MUDA to file intra‑court appeals before the Division Bench. The respondents filed an

K.K. POONACHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 5747 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 on the ground that it was not reserved for the President’s consideration and did not receive his assent as required by the now‑repealed Article 31(3). The Supreme Court examined whether the Act, enacted under Entry 5 of List II for city developmen

HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUSTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 4827 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Hari Krishna Mandir Trust, holding Plot No.473‑B3 and an adjoining private road, sought correction of a Town Planning Scheme that erroneously recorded the road as owned by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC). The High Court dismissed the trust's writ petition, holding that the land had vested in PMC under Section 88 o

VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC.versusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2017 INSC 5957 July 2017Case Partly allowed

The State acquired about 30 acres of land in Mudhol village for a rehabilitation centre under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land owners challenged the market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the reference court, claiming a higher rate based on sale deeds of nearby plots. The High Court re‑d

LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMNR. & ANR.versusSHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.

2010 INSC 3677 July 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a large batch of appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Karnataka concerning the liability to pay interest on solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The key issue was the interpretation of "closed execution" in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India and whether the limitation

MAHESH CHANDRA BANERJIversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS.

2010 INSC 3667 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The Banerji family claimed that, apart from 1‑1‑10 bighas of land excluded by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, the remaining portion of their Plot No. 1002 had been acquired for a development scheme (Yojana No. 7) and that no compensation had been assessed. The State and the Parishad argued that the land

UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.

2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a large tract of land in Delhi. Tenure‑holders had filed objections under Section 5‑A, which were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector but the report was prepared by his successor, prompting the Delhi High Cour

VINOD KAPUR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The land in dispute was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25‑11‑1980. The appellant, Vinod Kapur, purchased the land in 1985 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 7‑6‑1985, followed by an award in 1987‑88. The High Court of Delhi upheld the declaration as being with

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCHATRO DEVI & ORS.

2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Dismissed

The appeals filed by the Union of India and other respondents challenged the validity of acquisition proceedings that had been initiated after tenure‑holders raised objections under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners contended that the objections were maintainable and that the subsequent acq

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusGEETA DEVI

2014 INSC 3687 May 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the appeal of the Union of India challenging the quashing of land acquisition proceedings against land later purchased by Geeta Devi. The original tenure holder had lodged objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which the competent authority failed to consider. The ac

DEV SHARAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2011 INSC 1887 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to acquire 25.89 hectares of agricultural land in Murchha village for the construction of a district jail, issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 21 August 2008 and dispensing with the Section 5A hearing on the ground of urgency. The land‑own

K.S. SANJEEV (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2016 INSC 227 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were awarded Rs 11,000 per cent as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. They contended that a comparable parcel of land (document A‑4) had been sold for Rs 17,250 per cent on 27‑Oct‑1986, and that this sale should be considered for e

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8276 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired a parcel of land in 1977 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and took possession of it. Seventeen years later, the landowner (respondent No.1) leased part of the land to respondent No.2 and sued for ejectment, obtaining a decree in his favour. BDA, not

LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 8186 September 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, heir of a landowner whose property was taken by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) for a road scheme in 1970, sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an alternative plot in lieu of compensation, and damages for the decades‑long delay in a

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusGODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

2022 INSC 5276 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings concerning 28 Bigha 8 Biswa of village Sahoorpur to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, directing the purchaser, Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., to pay Rs 16,61,774. The purchaser argue

MUZAFFAR HUSAINversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2022 INSC 5306 May 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a former Uttar Pradesh judicial officer who retired voluntarily and joined the Central Administrative Tribunal, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct in awarding excessive compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, allegedly favouring subsequent purchasers. The enquiry found ch

JAYAMMA & ORS.versusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN AND ORS.

2013 INSC 3126 May 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, owners of residential houses in Mukundur village, claimed that seepage from a canal had caused damage to their homes and sought a mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector to complete acquisition proceedings as per a government letter. The High Court had ordered the Collector to pass awards, bu

UNION OF INDIAversusPREMLATA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 3966 April 2022Disposed off

The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire about 45 hectares of agricultural land in Nagpur for a defence research project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation per hectare, which was enhanced by the reference court to Rs 6 per square foo

SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2022 INSC 3946 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram, claimed ownership of land that the Himachal Pradesh government had used to construct the Narag Fagla Road in 1972-73 without initiating any land acquisition proceedings or paying compensation. While neighbouring landowners had later been awarded compensation after court‑o

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 2946 March 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(

SADHNA CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2020 INSC 2926 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Sadhana Chaudhary, a former Additional District Judge of Uttar Pradesh, was dismissed from service on the ground that she had allegedly awarded excessive compensation in two land acquisition cases, which the enquiry committee deemed "shocking blunders" and indicative of extraneous considerations. The High Court upheld

VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM &versusV.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO

2020 INSC 1416 February 2020Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell land with the original vendor in 1981, paid earnest money and was given possession, but the sale deed was not executed before the time limit expired and the land was subjected to a government acquisition. The acquisition was later set aside after the plaintiff’s writ peti

M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusR. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 1396 February 2020Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu acquired 49.67 acres of land in Porur Village under the Land Acquisition Act and, on 26 February 1964, executed a deed of assignment vesting 46.04 acres in WS Industries (India) Ltd (WSIL) free of encumbrances. The first respondent, R. Perumalswamy, claimed that his father had purchased the land

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusPUSHPAVATHI & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 1036 February 2018Dismissed

The Union of India acquired land in Pondicherry for a university and determined compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation, obtained a higher award from a civil court under Section 18, after which the Collector re‑determined compensation but refused to pay sta

CHHABILDASversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2018 INSC 1066 February 2018Disposed off

The appellant's land was reserved for a primary school under a development plan and a purchase notice was served under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The State Government confirmed the notice and the appropriate authority filed an acquisition proposal within the period prescribed by Sec

PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAGversusARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 6155 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether 162 acres of land in Kasmandi Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was subsequently declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to grant a lease to the

SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 6205 October 2021Disposed off

The Burdwan Development Authority acquired land for a satellite township under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and entered into an unregistered MoA with Bengal Shrachi for public‑private partnership development. The Reference Court enhanced compensation payable to landowners from Rs 5.8 lakh to Rs 35 lakh per acre, prom

V. RAMAKRISHNA RAOversusTHE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

2010 INSC 6705 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the initial market value was fixed by the Collector. After a reference under Section 18, the Reference Court increased the value, but the appellant, who had not made a Section 18 application, sought equal compensation through Section 28A(1) and

SHRI SAURAV JAIN & ANR.versusM/S A. B. P. DESIGN & ANR.

2021 INSC 3845 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent claimed to be the transferable owner of a parcel of land and sued to declare the Moradabad Development Authority's (MDA) auction of that land illegal and to restrain dispossession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding MDA was the lawful owner; the High Court reversed, declaring the auction v

CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIAversusRAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR.

2021 INSC 3835 August 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

The Central Government appealed against a High Court order that directed it to pay interest on solatium to Raj Devi from the date she was deprived of possession (16‑06‑1990). The Government argued that, per Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, interest on solatium could only be awarded from the date of the Supreme Court’s

MOHINDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2014 INSC 5225 August 2014Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired 90.07 acres of land in Shahabad, Kurukshetra under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for urban development. The claimants challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, arguing that the deduction for development charges should be limited because the land lay within already develo

RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2013 INSC 4435 July 2013Case Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra acquired land for a polytechnic college and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs 26.25 per square metre. The landowners sought a higher amount by invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs 85 per squa

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.versusM.K. RAFIQ SAHEB

2011 INSC 4535 July 2011Disposed off

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) appealed against the High Court's enhancement of compensation awarded to M.K. Rafiq Saheb for the acquisition of 34 guntas of land. The Supreme Court examined whether the land, though recorded as agricultural, had effectively ceased to be agricultural and could be treated as

BHAG SINGH ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2022 INSC 5155 May 2022Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre awarded for land acquired in Village Sohana under a notification dated 26‑10‑1990, arguing that later compensation amounts (Rs.5.96 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs per acre) awarded under subsequent notifications should be used to adjust the market value. The Supr

REDDY VEERANAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 5205 May 2022Disposed off

The appellant, Reddy Veerana, owned a scheduled parcel of land in Noida that was later allotted to DLF and subsequently acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had fixed compensation at Rs 1,10,000 per square metre (the circle rate) but allowed a 50 % deduction for development charges

ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMEGH SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 3835 May 2016Disposed off

The Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) initiated acquisition of land belonging to Megh Singh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invoking the emergency clause and taking possession, but no award was ever passed. Megh Singh challenged the acquisition, and the Allahabad High Court quashed the acquisition on the ground

VIJAY LATKA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2016 INSC 3745 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a land acquisition notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that despite an award being passed in 2005, they had not received any compensation. The High Court dismissed their writ petition on the ground that the award had already been passed. On appeal, the Supreme Co

TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.

2011 INSC 3605 May 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined several appeals arising from a common land acquisition notification for a Government Polytechnic in Uttaranchal. It held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer's use of the belting system was improper because the land was uniformly placed and intended for a single purpose, so uniform compe

BONDU RAMASWAMYversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2010 INSC 2715 May 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of land acquisitions undertaken by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the Arkavathi layout, focusing on whether the BDA Act required President's assent, was repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, and complied with constitutional provisions under Parts IX and IX‑A. The

ASHIM RANJAN DAS (D) BY LRS.versusSHIBU BODHAK & ORS.

2018 INSC 3065 April 2018Dismissed

The appellant, Ashim Ranjan Das, purchased land that had earlier been transferred to two patta holders, Shibu Bodhak and Tapan Malik, after a series of proceedings under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The Revenue Officer had earlier cancelled tenancy rights under Section 44(2a), but that order was set as

BILKIS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 2725 April 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a tourism development project, and an award of Rs.300 per acre was initially made. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.650 per acre, noting that the land had been converted to non‑agricultural use and had future tourism potential

SHANTA TALWAR & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 2705 April 2011Dismissed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of land for the Prem Nagar Metro station, arguing that the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, being a special law, should exclusively govern such acquisitions and that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was impliedly repealed. The respondents contended that the auth

M/S. JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2010 INSC 1955 April 2010Disposed off

The State of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire land for the Outer Ring Road (ORR) project around Hyderabad and Secunderabad. After objections that the original western alignment would cut through water bodies and require extensive rock cutting, an alternative alignment through Narsingi and Poppalguda villages was adopte

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS.

2024 INSC 2105 March 2024Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Board) sought to acquire land covered by Khasra No. 673 for a housing scheme, but the High Court quashed the acquisition on the ground that the respondents were not given a pre‑acquisition notice under Section 29 of the 1965 Act, denying them the right to object. The Supr

JAYESH DHANESH GORAGANDHIversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2012 INSC 5664 December 2012Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of a plot of land in Borivali, challenged the reservation of their land for a municipal office under a Town Planning Scheme prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the scheme was finalized, an arbitrator determined compensation, which was paid, and the

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

2022 INSC 11744 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of certain lands to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The original writ petitioner, Damini Wadhwa, re

MOHANLAL NANABHAI CHOKSI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6684 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of land in Surat, challenged the acquisition of their property for a vegetable market initiated by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) under Section 78 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. They argued that the later Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963, a special

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusM/S MOTI RATAN ESTATE AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 9984 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to acquire land in Asarjan village under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6, several landowners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition. The High Court granted interim stays in writ petitions 7867/2012, 3051/2013 and 3159/2013, res

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.versusMATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.

2015 INSC 6384 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The subject land was originally evacuee property that was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and placed in the compensation pool. It was subsequently auctioned to the respondents, who obtained provisional possession and later a sale c

DHEERAJ SINGHversusGREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

2023 INSC 5944 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a District Judge fixed compensation at Rs.267 per square yard with solatium. The respondent (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) appealed the award, and the appellants filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC seeking

VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

2018 INSC 5844 July 2018Disposed off

The appellant owned land that was acquired by the state and an award was passed on 30‑11‑1987. A notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was sent on 04‑12‑1987 but the award itself was not attached. The appellant received a certified copy of the award only on 03‑02‑1988 and filed a reference for enhancem

M/S MUTHA ASSOCIATES AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 4334 July 2013Disposed off

The case concerned the acquisition of land in Pune for the extension of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) market yard, designated for a "Bamboo Trade and Flea Market". The land owners and Mutha Associates failed to object during the planning and acquisition stages and only challenged the award after poss

SYED MAQBOOL ALIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2011 INSC 2634 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired land in 1982 for a road and paid compensation to certain owners, but the appellant claimed that his plots were taken without any legal acquisition. After a complaint to the Lokayukta was dismissed as time‑barred, he filed a writ petition in 2000 seeking acquisition of the disputed land and compensati

WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

2022 INSC 1464 February 2022Case Partly allowed

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. owned a township served by a private trolley line. When the Ujjani Dam project submerged part of the line, the company claimed compensation for the loss of rails and sleepers, rolling stock and the increased cost of road transport, invoking the "severance" and "injurious affection" provisi

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusGOPALDAS BHAGWAN DAS & ORS.

2020 INSC 1274 February 2020Dismissed

The Union requisitioned land in Malad, Mumbai in 1943 for defence purposes, partially de‑requisitioned in 1949, and later issued a Section 4(1) notification in 1975 acquiring the remaining portion, with a declaration in 1978 and a draft award in 1986. The respondents filed a writ petition in 2002 alleging that the stat

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GADAG & ORS.

2011 INSC 84 January 2011Case Partly allowed

The Karnataka Housing Board acquired 127 acres of land in Gadag-Betegeri for a housing project and awarded compensation of Rs.45,000 per acre. The landowners challenged the award, and the Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs.2,17,372 per acre based on an auction sale of a nearby 329 sq.m plot (Ex. P‑2). The High Co

HASMUKHRAI V MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 8283 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Hasmukhrai Mehta, owned land in Village Sheel, Raigad, which was originally included in a 1977 residential development plan. In 1999 the land was re‑designated for an Agricultural Produce Market Yard and a truck terminal, and the appellant served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regi

PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS.versusMUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.

2014 INSC 8273 December 2014Dismissed

The appellants owned land that had been reserved for a public garden under a development plan notified in 1966 and continued under a revised plan in 1987. They served a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act in 1989, seeking acquisition, but the notice was issued only two years after

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

2022 INSC 11583 November 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court dealt with a long‑standing dispute involving tribal landowners whose lands were acquired by the government in the late 1980s for coal mining by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL). The key issues were the applicable law for compensation and rehabilitation, the cut‑off date for valuation, the relevance of t

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusBALWANT SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 9963 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against judgments that applied the Madishetti Bala Ramul decision, which interprets the Land Acquisition Act, to disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Supreme Court examined whether the award under the Land Acquisition Act, deemed a government offer under Section 25, could be c

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2018 INSC 6743 August 2018Disposed off

In 2008 the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a scheme and preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 to acquire land for civic amenities. Five years later, landowners filed writ petitions alleging that the BDA and the State Government had failed to issue a fin

DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2011 INSC 5413 August 2011

The appellants owned land that the Uttar Pradesh government sought to acquire for the construction of a district jail. The State invoked Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the hearing provision of Section 5‑A, claiming urgency. The High Court upheld the State's action, but the S

SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDEversusPUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4663 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Sulochana Chandrakant Galande, challenged the acquisition of her land by the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was not within urban limits at the Act's commencement and that the later repeal of the Act should invalidate the acquisition. The Supreme Court

LAXMI DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 4783 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners, challenged the State of Bihar’s acquisition of their land under the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that no award had been made despite a High Court direction in 1988 to do so within four months. The State argued that Section 17 allowed possession

KAZI AKILODDIN SUJAODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2013 INSC 4253 July 2013Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra took possession of the appellant's land in 1998 for a flood protection wall and later issued acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in 2000, and the State paid rental compensation based on that award. The referen

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

2010 INSC 3413 June 2010Disposed off

The case concerned allotments of land acquired under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act and the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The State Government, acting as a revisional authority, directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to allot land to both Manohar Lal and Ugrasen

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

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)versusYUNUS & ORS.

2022 INSC 1423 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a land acquisition notification where the original compensation award was Rs.24,033 per bigha. The respondents did not file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but later a reference was made and a Lok Adalat, under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, p

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

DARSHAN LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) BY L.RS.versusGOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 13 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi government sought to acquire 80 bighas 15 biswas of land, including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants, for a 400/220 KV electric sub‑station. It invoked Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dispensing with the hearing provisions of Section 5A(2) on the ground of urgency lin

BRIJ MOHAN & ORS.versusHARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

2011 INSC 23 January 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development of a city and HUDA formulated a scheme to allot plots to the land losers at "normal allotment rates". The appellants applied for allotment in 1990 and were later allotted plots, but HUDA charged them the revised 1993 rate inste

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusKARAMPAL AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12482 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

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

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI AND ANR.versusSURESH B. KAPUR & ORS.

2022 INSC 12452 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned lands in Chattarpur, Delhi acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, later governed by the 2013 Act. The High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because possession had not been taken and compensation, though deposited in court, was not tendered. The

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusKRISHNA SAINI & ORS.

2022 INSC 12462 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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 n

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSUDESH VERMA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12492 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi High Court had held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act were 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 of the land had not been taken. The Supreme Court examin

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusMOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR.

2022 INSC 12472 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner, who was a subsequent purchaser. The land in question had been possessed

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUBHASH JAIN AND ORS.

2022 INSC 12502 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Supreme C

KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8012 December 2013Dismissed

The petitioners purchased land that had been subject to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the de‑notification of that acquisition was under appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court held that a purchaser after such a notification cannot challenge the acquisition and, under the doctri

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 11532 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but compensation had not been paid to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

2022 INSC 11542 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but had not yet paid compensation to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabili

TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERversusM.I.D.C. & ORS.

2012 INSC 5032 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' ancestral land was notified for acquisition in 1964, but the acquisition proceedings lapsed while the State took possession and handed it over to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation without paying compensation. The appellants filed a writ petition seeking compensation, which the High Cour

RAMJI VEERJI PATEL & ORS.versusREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS.

2011 INSC 7802 November 2011Dismissed

The appellants owned 1.45 acres of land on which they had raised the level, built a structure and operated a saw‑mill that was their sole livelihood. The Tamil Nadu Government, acting on a requisition by Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and lat

DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI & ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2022 INSC 9042 September 2022Dismissed

The appellants, owners of land in Mumbai, challenged the municipal corporation’s acquisition of their property for a link road, arguing that the road could only be built after amending the Development Plan under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP Act). The High Court upheld the acquisition, holding that t

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusGOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR

2011 INSC 6412 September 2011Case Partly allowed

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and the State of West Bengal sought compensation for three parcels of land (two agricultural and one marsh) acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents challenged the award, arguing that the valuation should be based on recent sales of nearby beel plots,

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANRversusMEDHA PATKAR & ORS.

2011 INSC 5312 August 2011Disposed off

After the completion of the Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar dams, the Madhya Pradesh government initiated land acquisition for canal construction under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Medha Patkar and other petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that the Command Area Development (CAD) plans had not been submitted

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. AGGARWAL & ORS.

2011 INSC 5402 August 2011Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the original landowners had filed claims for Rs.4,000 per square yard. During the proceedings the landowners executed assignment deeds transferring their compensation rights to assignees (S.S. Aggarwa

PREMWATIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 4142 July 2013Case Partly allowed

The appellants' land in Shahibabad Daulatpur village was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 13,000 per bigha (Block A) and Rs 6,000 per bigha (Block B). The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 17,500–18,000 per bigha, and the Delhi High Court further

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusMAWASI & ORS. ETC.ETC.

2012 INSC 2572 July 2012Dismissed

The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that fixed compensation for land acquired for an industrial township, alleging that the market value was based on a fraudulent sale deed (Exhibit P1) between two companies allegedly under common management and that th

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusT. YOUNIS & ANR.

2026 INSC 6162 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) sought arbitration under the National Highways Act for compensation relating to land acquisition, resulting in an arbitral award on 03‑02‑2022. Both parties filed applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were dismissed by the arbit

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR CANALversusVILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 2022 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Executive Engineer, had taken possession of land belonging to the respondents on 3 June 2001, but the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued only on 30 December 2006. The respondents claimed compensation, rent, and interest for the period before the n

MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2021 INSC 1392 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant owned 30.1 acres of land in Survey No. 166 that was acquired in 1981 for a railway line under a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs.454 per are for wet land and Rs.2,137 per are for dry land, which the

D.B. BASNETT (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE COLLECTOR & ANR. EAST DISTRICT, GANGTOK, SIKKIM & ANR.

2020 INSC 2392 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, D.B. Basnett, claimed that the State of Sikkim had illegally occupied his 7.07‑acre land without complying with the procedural requirements of the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977. The State contended that it had paid compensation of Rs.62,645 in 1980 and therefore possessed the land l

SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusSTATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 2352 March 2016

The State of Himachal Pradesh acquired land for a road widening project and, to expedite the process, entered into negotiated settlements for compensation. A Negotiated Award dated 11‑09‑2008 fixed the land value and barred any enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, while a Supplementary Negotiated A

BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 692 February 2012Dismissed

The Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society sought acquisition of 207 acres of land for a housing scheme, entering into an agreement with the State Government and an estate agent who was paid over Rs 5 crores to secure the acquisition. The High Court quashed the acquisition, holding that no housing scheme had been f

M. NAGABHUSHANAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

2011 INSC 922 February 2011Dismissed

The appellant, owner of two plots of land, challenged the acquisition of his land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, alleging that the land lay outside the Framework Agreement and that the acquisition was invalid because no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Land

DIGAMBER & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2013 INSC 5051 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra acquired agricultural land for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs 50,000 per hectare, which the landowners challenged. The reference court, on a petition under Section 3

VALLIYAMMAL AND ANOTHERversusSPECIAL TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) AND ANOTHER ETC.

2011 INSC 5301 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of small parcels of land acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for a housing project, challenged the compensation fixed by the Reference Court after the Madras High Court reduced the market value by applying a 40% deduction for development charges and a further 20% deduction for the small size of

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusDR. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN

2019 INSC 6981 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Tamil Nadu was legally bound to provide alternate housing sites to landowners whose property was acquired for the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) railway project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had directed the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W.versusVITTHAL DAMODAR PATIL AND ANR

2019 INSC 7021 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Executive Engineer appealed a High Court order that had enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on a valuation report prepared by Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari. The appellant contended that the High Court failed to scrutinise the valuer's competency, eligibility and

JAI KRISHAN (D) TR. LRS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

2014 INSC 4461 July 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellants sought compensation for 36 acres of land acquired in Mussoorie for the extension of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy. The High Court had applied the "belting area" principle, presuming the entire tract to be sloppy and hilly, and rejected the claim for 12% enhanced compensation under Section 23(1

RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 3841 July 2013Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan acquired 15.5 hectares of land to set up a North‑Western Railway Zone complex and staff quarters. The landowners challenged the acquisition, arguing that because the project was a railway (a Union subject) only the Central Government could be the "appropriate Government" under Sections 4 and 6 of

AHSANUL HODAversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2013 INSC 3891 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's 3.54 acres of agricultural land were acquired for a reservoir project, and the Collector initially paid Rs.6,513.60 based on a market rate of Rs.16 per decimal. The Reference Court later fixed a higher compensation of Rs.250 per decimal and awarded Rs.10,000 for damage to standing crops, relying on two

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANITA SINGH & ORS.

2023 INSC 4731 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired a parcel of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing notifications and passing an award, while Anita Singh (Respondent No.1) claimed to have purchased the land. Singh filed a writ petition invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

TELANGANA HOUSING BOARDversusAZAMUNNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU. LRS. & ORS.

2018 INSC 4341 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Telangana Housing Board (APHB) acquired a large tract of land, including Survey No. 1009, for a housing scheme in 1968. The respondents later claimed that about 11 acres within Survey No. 1009 were not acquired and sought correction of a purported clerical error under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Are

JASVEER SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2017 INSC 4211 May 2017Dismissed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a railway line, with compensation paid and a reference for higher compensation awarded in 1988. They later filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition award, alleging it was not a proper award and seeking fresh compensation

LILAWATI AGARWAL ETC.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND ETC.

2016 INSC 2941 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which provides for an enhanced solatium of 30% of market value. The award in the present case was passed on 30 September 1985, after the amendment came into force. The High Court had held that the principle laid down

BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2015 INSC 2791 April 2015Case Partly allowed

The State of Haryana acquired large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land in 1977 for residential development, and the landowners sought compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed the fair market value at Rs.16.52 per square yard, which was later enhanced to Rs.22 by the reference court. The High Cour

V. KALA BHARATHI & ORS.versusTHE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., BR. CHITOOR

2014 INSC 2361 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of a deceased road‑accident victim, were awarded Rs.98.40 million with 12% interest by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The insurer appealed, reduced the principal to Rs.56.40 million but retained the interest rate, and made several partial payments. The Executing Court adjusted those pay

SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPURversusSATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 1961 April 2013Dismissed

The Shrirampur Municipal Council had reserved parcels of land for public purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, but failed to acquire them within the statutory period. The landowners served purchase notices under Section 127 of the Act, after which the Council passed resolutions and sent l

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusM/S VIJAYA LEASING LTD. & ORS.

2013 INSC 1971 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land under the Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, with possession handed over to the government on 9 December 1983. A de‑notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 5 October 1999, and later recalled on 27 June 2000. The Karnataka Hig

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONERversusVEER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

2010 INSC 1891 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) acquired land for a residential layout, took possession and issued a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Later, the State Government issued a notification on 15 September 2001 under Section 48(1) of the same Act, withdrawing the acquisition o

SAWARAN LATA ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 1901 April 2010Dismissed

The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 2 May 2001, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 30 April 2002, and made an award under Section 11 on 27 April 2004, taking possession of the petitioners' land. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court

LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2013 INSC 1331 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land for a bus stand, arguing that the preliminary notification issued on 01‑05‑1980 had lapsed because the declaration under Section 6 was made on 19‑03‑1987, well beyond the two‑year limit imposed by Section 5(2) of the 1981 Amendment Act, and that the State’s invoca

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusBHERU SINGH & ORS.

2012 INSC 651 February 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the entitlement of displaced families from the Man Dam project in Madhya Pradesh to receive two hectares of land under the State's Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy. The High Court had directed that each adult son who became a major before the acquisition notification be treated as

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