Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
2126 judgments · newest first · showing 801–1000
The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the National Highways Act, challenged an award dated 30.05.2020 which had determined market value using the multiplication factor‑2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, challenged an award dated 08.01.2020 that computed market value using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The petitioners challenged an award dated 28‑09‑2020 in which the market value of land acquired under the National Highways Act was computed using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement …
The legal heirs of the late Gohil Bhagavandas sought the benefit of Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, i.e., an additional 12% compensation on the market value of land that had been determined using the …
The applicant, Mohammad Sajid Khan, a tenant of Ateek Ahmad, feared demolition of his shop and filed a writ petition which was disposed directing him to seek relief through his landlord. He subsequently filed a contempt application alleging that the district authorities had not acted on his …
The petitioners challenged an award dated 28‑09‑2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the award failed to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement …
The petitioners, land owners affected by a National Highways acquisition, claimed they were denied the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, calculated on the …
The petitioners, a large group of land owners, challenged the award dated 30.01.2020 for failing to grant them the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) on the …
Surendra Singh challenged the acquisition of his 0.045 hectare land in Kishunpura, Saran, by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the Ram Janki Path project. He alleged that the acquisition order and the arbitration award violated Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and …
The petitioners challenged an award dated 08.01.2020 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which had applied the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) to determine market value but had granted the additional …
The petitioners, a large group of land owners, challenged the award dated 15‑01‑2020 which computed the market value of their land using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, …
The petitioners, a group of land owners, challenged the award dated 28‑09‑2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The petitioners challenged an award dated 15‑01‑2020 under the National Highways Act, 1956, which had computed the market value of their land using the multiplication factor 2 prescribed in Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The petitioners, a group of land owners, challenged the award dated 08.01.2020 for failing to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) on the market value …
The petitioners, legal heirs of the late Gohil, challenged an award dated 08‑01‑2020 that computed the market value of land acquired under the National Highways Act using the multiplication factor 2 under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, …
The petitioners, whose land was acquired by the State for industrial development, received a statutory award in 2008 which was later enhanced by a 2020 reference. They filed an application under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act on 1 September 2020 seeking re‑determination of compensation, …
The petitioners, heirs of land owners whose property was acquired for a national highway, claimed that the award dated 23‑02‑2018 failed to grant them the 12 % additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The petitioners challenged the award dated 30.05.2020 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, alleging that the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 …
The petitioners challenged an award dated 30‑May‑2020 that failed to grant the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the market value calculated with the multiplication …
The petitioners challenged the award dated 23‑02‑2018 for failing to grant the 12 % additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) on the market value that includes the …
The petitioners, land owners whose lands were acquired for a national highway, challenged the award dated 30.05.2020 for not granting the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the award granted to Kisan Gopala Deshmukh and others in a land acquisition matter (Reference No. 137 of 1995). The acquisition officer had awarded Rs. 15,679, whereas the jurisdictional District Judge had awarded Rs. 77,740. The appellant argued that the …
The petitioners, a group of landowners, challenged the acquisition of their land for the extension of an SSB camp, alleging that no compensation had been paid and that possession had been taken. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and SSB officials, contended that the compensation amount …
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a 29‑Oct‑2025 order rejecting his representation for release of 0.75 acre of land acquired in 1972‑73 for a girls' school that was later built elsewhere. He contended that the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition …
Fourteen residents of Choprabazar, Purnea, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued for land acquisition under the National Highways project. They alleged that an ex‑parte order had granted them a meager compensation without notice and that their houses were being demolished for a proposed …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference and were awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal. The State appealed the award under Section …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference under the Land Acquisition Act and the reference court awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre. The State appealed the award under Section …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained a reference under the Land Acquisition Act and the reference court awarded an additional Rs 277 per square metre. The State appealed the award under Section …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference proceeding (Land Acquisition Reference Cases 651/2009‑659/2009). The State appealed the award under …
The State of Gujarat acquired land in Jepura village for a bypass road and paid Rs 6 per square metre as compensation. The claimants obtained an additional Rs 277 per square metre through a reference case (651/2009‑659/2009) before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal. The State appealed the …
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of encroachments on several plots of land in Chandauli district. The State submitted an affidavit showing that the revenue authorities had already set aside a 1997 order, restored the plots to their original category, and …
The petitioner, Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a 12 December 2024 order of the Collector of Bhojpur that dismissed his representation regarding land acquired in 1977‑78 for flood‑relief rehabilitation. He sought setting aside the order, declaration that the acquisition …
The petitioners sought the return of 25.39 acres of land acquired in 1970 for a new township, alleging that the land was being leased to private parties contrary to the public purpose and invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v. G. Jayarama Reddy. They also amended the …
The appellant, Pradeep Kumar Shah, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceeding (Case No. 27 of 1980‑81) had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and demanded compensation or a declaration of title. The State argued that the acquisition was …
The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the District Magistrate to decide a representation dated 04‑02‑2026 and to award compensation at Rs.297 per square yard with full escalation as per the 01‑09‑2015 order. The land in question had been acquired under …
The petitioner, who bought a small parcel of land in 1994, challenged acquisition proceedings initiated in 2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that no notice, possession, or compensation was effected before the 2013 Act came into force. An award was later made in 2025 under the …
The petitioner, Rakesh Narayan Singh, claimed that his ancestral land of 8.10 bighas was acquired in 1976‑77 for the Gogri‑Narayanpur Embankment under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but he never received compensation and the relevant records are missing. The State of Bihar argued that compensation …
The petitioners, heirs of Yakub Contractor, claimed ownership of a 88.29‑acre parcel in Lonavala that had been reserved for "housing for the dishoused" under the 1978 Development Plan and its later revisions. They served purchase notices under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town …
The appellant, a State functionary, filed a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging an award and decree in a land acquisition case. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1,57,531, which is below the Rs. 2 lakh threshold set by the State Government's amended litigation …
The appellant, a state functionary, filed a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging an award of compensation of Rs. 65 per square yard in a land acquisition case. The appeal was valued at Rs. 84,503.79, which is below the Rs. 2 lakh monetary threshold. A State …
The petitioners, a group of landowners from Shankarpur Jhama, claimed that the compensation awarded for their lands acquired for the Salepur‑to‑Rajgir road was undervalued because the Minimum Value Register (MVR) had not been revised since 2023 and a statutory multiplier of two should apply. They …
Petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Singh challenged the acquisition of his land for a highway bridge, alleging that the acquisition proceedings violated provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (sections 4, 5A, 9, 6) and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation …
The petitioner, Razaullah Ansari, claimed that his raiyati land in Aurangabad district was being acquired for a road deviation without proper notice, acquisition, or compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities. He alleged that the land …
Petitioners Pankaj Kumar and Laxmi Kumari challenged the acquisition of 47.97 acres of their land in Gaya district under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that the notification and the 80% compensation awarded were illegal. They sought quashing of the acquisition notification, the related …
Karu Chaudhary filed a civil review seeking to set aside the Patna High Court’s 27 September 2013 judgment that dismissed his title suit and held that the land in question was not acquired by the State. He argued that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) was not a …
Petitioner Upendra Kumar Singh filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its officials to complete acquisition formalities for excess land taken beyond the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for the Kudra Railway Over …
Dr. Himanshu Roy filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus and certiorari to restrain the State of Bihar and its agencies from acquiring his land under the urgency clause of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to quash notifications issued in December 2007 that allegedly bypassed the …
The petitioner, Vijaykumar Hariprasad Agarwal, claimed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s …
The petitioners, four landowners whose dwelling houses were acquired by Indian Railways, filed a writ petition seeking employment in the railway under the ‘Land for Job’ policy, claiming they were physically displaced. They relied on earlier High Court orders and argued that the railway should …
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the enhancement of compensation awarded to the respondents for land acquired under the Chaskman Dam Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially fixed compensation at Rs.1,02,969, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.2,12,258. The State …
The petitioners, original claimants in two land acquisition cases, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the acquiring body willfully failed to pay the enhanced compensation, solatium and interest ordered by the court on 11 December 2024. The court had …
The appellants, a group of landowners, challenged the acquisition of 23.71 acres for a police line in Madhepura, alleging that compensation had not been paid and possession not taken. The Single Judge held that the location of a police line is an administrative decision and the court could not …
A large group of petitioners filed multiple writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents, alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8514, etc.) were filed by land owners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other authorities alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8513, 8518, etc.) were filed by various landowners against the Union of India, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of petitioners filed separate writ petitions (Nos. 8509, 8510, 8512, etc.) against the Union of India, the Ministry of Shipping, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) alleging non‑payment of statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
A large group of writ petitions filed by various land owners alleged that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s …
Petitioner Param Hans Singh filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its officials to pay compensation with 100% solarium for land over which electric wires were laid without acquisition, to declare the market value of the land, and to either remove the wires or …
The petitioners, who claim ancestral ownership of Khesra Nos. 1064 and 1092, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Land Acquisition Officer not to acquire their house under the pretext of a public road, and a certiorari to quash the acquisition notification issued under …
The case concerned compensation disputes arising from the erection of transmission towers and power lines under a 400 kV project that traversed four districts in Haryana. Landowners claimed that the compensation awarded by the District Judges and upheld by the High Court was inadequate, while the …
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, …
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 …
The case concerned the allotment of residential and commercial plots to land owners (oustees) whose land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1992 for a residential development project. The oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act seeking mandatory …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 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 …
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 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 …
The Urban Improvement Trust (the appellant) sought to acquire land in Nangli Kota and Moongaska villages under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The respondents challenged the acquisition, alleging procedural defects: failure to serve individual notices under s.52(2), premature possession …
The appellants' land was acquired for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway and they received a compensation award in 2006. After a reference for enhancement of compensation was dismissed, a High Court enhanced the compensation in 2016 for similarly situated landowners. The appellants filed an …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) sought to acquire 83.761 hectares of land for industrial development, issuing a Section 4 notification in 2013. Several landowners filed objections under Section 5A, claiming their lands were "abadi" and should be exempt, but the Collector …
The appellant, owner of a 1.25‑lac‑sq‑ft land in Akola, challenged the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a flood‑protection wall, contending that the land was not wholly within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’ and that the market value should be based on …
The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals and miscellaneous applications concerning compensation for land acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners, who had previously received compensation of INR 340 per square yard, …
The Supreme Court examined a massive batch of land‑acquisition disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi and its agencies versus private landowners, notably M/s BSK Realtors LLP. The core issues were whether the dismissal of a civil appeal by one authority in the first round barred other …
The Delhi Development Authority and other government bodies filed a batch of appeals and petitions seeking condonation of delay for challenging High Court orders that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appellants argued …
The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority filed a batch of review petitions challenging Supreme Court judgments that had dismissed civil appeals and special leave petitions which held land‑acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of …
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation claimed it had acquired the land of Bimal Kumar Shah under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which it argued gave it power to acquire land for streets and parks. The High Court held that Section 352 does not confer a power of compulsory …
The appellant's land was acquired in 1976‑77 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no compensation was ever paid. After repeatedly seeking payment, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a single High Court judge on the ground of a 42‑year delay. The Division Bench of the …
Sixteen claimants filed a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation on land acquired in 1989. Three claimants, including Pathapati Subba Reddy, died during the pendency of the reference and their heirs were not impleaded. After the reference was dismissed in 1999, the heirs of …
The Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (Corporation) sought compensation for about 13,000 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for several water and irrigation projects. The Karnataka High Court had enhanced compensation amounts in a series of judgments, but the Supreme Court …
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 …
The appellants, owners of land in Khora village, sought compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs 70 per sq. yard, the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 106, and other landowners obtained further enhancement to Rs 130 …
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 …
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 …
The case arose from a land acquisition dispute where the Reference Court enhanced compensation for landowners, prompting the Union of India to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was filed 479 days after the order, exceeding the limitation period, leading the Union to seek …
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 …
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 …
The land owners challenged the compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana Improvement Trust for lands acquired under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, alleging that the High Court erred by applying a one‑third deduction for development charges and by ignoring recent sale deeds of shop premises. …
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 …
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 …
The appellant, a society, challenged the applicability of various Central and State statutes to the Sundargarh district of Orissa, which had been declared a Scheduled Area under Clause 6 of the Fifth Schedule. It contended that non‑tribals could not settle, vote, or contest elections there and that …
The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, alleging inherent arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants, who purchased the lands after acquisition notices were issued, sought to …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Anil Agarwal Foundation, a private company at the time of land acquisition, sought 6,000 acres of agricultural land in Odisha to establish a university. The State issued Section 4(1) notifications and proceeded with acquisition despite the company’s conversion to a public company occurring only …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought to acquire several parcels of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector but not paid to the owners. The owners filed writ petitions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair …
The Land and Building Department appealed a Delhi High Court order that held the acquisition of land in Ghonda, Delhi had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid. The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Misirimal Solanki, interpreting the …
The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) and the State of Haryana appealed against a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment that declared land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have "deemed lapse" under Section 24(2) of the …
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the National Capital Territory of Delhi and others against a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The State acquired land in Kozhikode for an IT Park under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification on 21‑08‑2009. While many landowners accepted a negotiated price of Rs 1,00,000 per cent, a group of owners dissatisfied with the compensation filed references under Section 18, leading …
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 …
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 …
The case concerned land acquired in 1992 for a resettlement project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where a consent award was passed in 1993 and compensation was offered but refused by the landowner, who also continued to cultivate the land. The landowner later sought cancellation of the …
The appellants claimed that they had acquired possession of a village plot in Delhi before the respondents obtained a registered sale deed and mutation in 1989, and they challenged the mutation on the ground of adverse possession, leading the Financial Commissioner to set aside the mutation and vest …
The Union of India appealed a Delhi High Court order that 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 because compensation had not been paid. The land in …
The Delhi High Court had held that the acquisition of certain land had deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because neither possession nor compensation had been effected, relying on Pune …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings 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. The High Court had relied on …
The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired a parcel of land (Khasra No.115) measuring 20 biswa, taking possession of 19 biswa and issuing a notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act for the payment of compensation to the landowner, who failed to collect it, leading to the amount being …
The Government of NCT Delhi had taken possession of land on 11 July 2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but had not paid compensation to the landowner, Jai Pal. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation …
The Government of NCT of Delhi 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. The land had an award under the …
The land in question was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1992, and possession was taken in 2006 and handed over to the DDA. A private respondent filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had allowed a writ petition filed by M/s Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd., a subsequent purchaser of land, declaring that the acquisition of the land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and …
The Indore Development Authority (IDA) prepared Scheme No. 97 under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and published the final scheme on 8 June 1984. Within three years it negotiated with landowners, failed, and then sought acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Land & Building Department appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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, relying on the Pune Municipal …
The Government of NCT Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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. The High Court had relied on Pune …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken physical possession of land on 16 July 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 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 and …
The Government of NCT Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of land in Village Molarband 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 …
The appellants' small parcels of land in Sultanpur were acquired by the State of Haryana for an expressway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The initial award fixed a market value of Rs.12.5 lakh per acre based on a government circular, which was later enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.43.17 …
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 19(b)(II)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Development Control Rules and Regulation 29(7)(a), which require that layouts exceeding 10,000 square metres reserve 10% of the area as open space for communal and recreational purposes and transfer that land to the local …
The Government of NCT of Delhi had taken possession of certain land on 12 March 1981 but had not paid compensation to the owners. The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, held that the acquisition had deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the …
The State of Haryana acquired about 58 acres of land in Kherki, Majra village under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original award of Rs 60 lakh per acre was enhanced by the reference court to Rs 1.56 crore per acre, and the High Court further increased it to Rs 2.98 crore per acre by taking a …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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 physical …
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 to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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, …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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 …
The Government of NCT of Delhi had taken possession of land on 14 September 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, held that the acquisition proceedings had deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the …
The Northern Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) acquired land in 1959 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award passed in 1964 and possession taken on 1 May 1964. The original owners claimed that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and …
The Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (HSIIDC) sought to acquire agricultural land in the villages of Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, Sonipat, Haryana, for the expansion of industrial sector 39 and the Kundli‑Manesar‑Palwal (KMP) expressway. Two acquisition …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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 …
The case concerned land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where a notification was issued in 1965, an award passed in 1981 and possession taken by the beneficiary department on 23 September 1981. Compensation could not be ascertained due to a torn map, and the original owners filed a …
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 …
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 …
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 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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired land and took possession on 27 September 2012, depositing the full compensation amount with the Treasury but not disbursing it to the landowner. The Delhi High Court held that, under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) acquired a parcel of land in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking possession by drawing a panchnama. The land was later sold to Beena Gupta in 2010, who filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that had 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 …
The State of Haryana appealed a 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, on the ground that the subsequent purchasers …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had 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. The land had an award dated …
The Government of NCT of Delhi 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. The respondents, who were …
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) acquired land in 1982 for the development of NOIDA and awarded compensation of Rs.30,000 per bigha. The original owners filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation, which was dismissed, and …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition of certain parcels to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The Delhi government acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification in 1965, declaring an award and taking possession of the land in 1986. After nearly three decades, the respondents filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings against Mohd. Maqbool and others to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, …
The appellants, joint owners of a 23‑kanal property, entered into two sale agreements with the respondent, requiring the sale deed to be executed by 16‑08‑2004 and making earnest money forfeitable if the deadline was missed. The respondent paid part of the consideration as earnest money but failed …
The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) had taken possession of a plot of land on 13 February 2003 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and later deposited compensation in court under Section 30(2) of that Act. The High Court held that the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) …
The appellants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a gas compressor station, with compensation awarded at Rs. 69 per square metre. They challenged the acquisition and award in a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on 7 August 2012 but reserved liberty to seek …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land on 26 November 2012 and handed it over to itself under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A subsequent purchaser filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair …
The Land Acquisition Collector appealed a Delhi High Court order that declared the acquisition of land (possession taken on 16‑03‑2004) to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land on 19‑01‑2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but had not paid compensation to the owners. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had "deemed to have lapsed" under sub‑section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair …
The appellant, Kamla Neti, a daughter of a coparcener belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, claimed a one‑fifth share of compensation awarded for land acquired by the State, invoking the survivorship right under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Reference Court and the Orissa High Court rejected her …
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 …
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, …
The Delhi government had taken possession of land on 3 December 2012 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and sent the compensation award to the Reference Court on 28 October 2014. The Delhi High Court held that, because the compensation was not tendered before the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation …
