Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

2126 judgments · newest first · showing 1001–1200

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusKRISHNA SAINI & ORS.

2022 INSC 1246Appeal(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 …

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

2022 INSC 1249Appeal(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 …

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

2022 INSC 1247Appeal(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 …

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUBHASH JAIN AND ORS.

2022 INSC 1250Appeal(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, …

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

2022 INSC 1231Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusRADHESHYAM & ORS

2022 INSC 1228Appeal(s) allowed

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

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR.versusISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 1220Disposed off

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusASHA JAIN & ORS.

2022 INSC 1190Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had taken possession of land in 2005 for a public development project, but compensation to the recorded owners was not paid. The original writ petitioner, who claimed rights under an agreement to sell dated 9 May 2005, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDAMINI WADHWA & ORS.

2022 INSC 1174Appeal(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 …

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

2022 INSC 1158Disposed 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 …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 1153Appeal(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 …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

2022 INSC 1154Appeal(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 …

MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFSversusSHAIKH YUSUF BHAI CHAWLA & ORS.

2022 INSC 1127Case Partly allowed

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

JASPAL SINGH & OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 1126Appeal(s) allowed

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

RADHEY SHAMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 1101Case Partly allowed

The land in Hansi and Dhana villages of Haryana was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a Section 4 notification on 29‑08‑2005 and a Section 11 award on 03‑08‑2007. The Reference Court in 2014 fixed the market value at Rs 1,000 per square yard, which the State accepted but the …

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

2022 INSC 1086Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a land acquisition under the urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the acquiring authority failed to tender 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession and also did not pass an award within two years as required by Section …

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORSversusNISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

2022 INSC 1074Appeal(s) allowed

The lands were acquired for BPCL under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The landowners challenged the acquisition and, after the 1990 Act was repealed, sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, …

M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 1060Disposed off

M/S. M.S.P.L. Limited and its wholly‑owned subsidiary sought to set up an iron‑ore palletisation plant and an integrated steel plant in Karnataka. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, acquired 1,034 acres of land after …

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

2022 INSC 1055Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2022 INSC 904Dismissed

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 …

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

2022 INSC 849Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusRAMCHANDRA & ORS.

2022 INSC 820Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against a High Court award that compensated the entire land owned by Sagar Maize Products Ltd. at Rs.19 per square foot for land acquired for a railway line, while the company sought enhancement to Rs.40 per square foot. The Supreme Court examined the methodology used by …

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

2022 INSC 761Disposed off

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

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ANRversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2022 INSC 762Directions issued

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

RAMESHWAR AND ORSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 738Disposed off

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

NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusDIVESH BHUTANI & ORS.

2022 INSC 737Disposed off

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

GREGORY PATRAO AND ORS.versusMANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 693Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka government acquired land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for industrial development, and the original owners were compensated. After acquisition, Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL) was allotted the land by the Karnataka Industrial Areas …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS

2022 INSC 668Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a trial court decree that declared land acquisition notifications void and restrained DDA from dispossessing co‑owners of the land. The High Court dismissed the appeal as abated because several respondents had died and their legal representatives were …

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusM/S. NEMICHAND DAMODARDAS & ANR.

2022 INSC 697Appeal(s) allowed

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) appealed against a Bombay High Court order that had increased compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act from Rs.21 per sq. ft. to Rs.174 per sq. ft., relying on the Ready Reckoner rates. BSNL argued that the Ready Reckoner, prepared for …

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

2022 INSC 614Appeal(s) allowed

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

AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusRAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 614Appeal(s) allowed

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

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRAversusANEK SINGH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 612Appeal(s) allowed

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSUNIL KHATRI & ORS.

2022 INSC 601Appeal(s) allowed

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusGODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

2022 INSC 527Appeal(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. …

MUZAFFAR HUSAINversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2022 INSC 530Dismissed

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. …

BHAG SINGH ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2022 INSC 515Dismissed

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 …

REDDY VEERANAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 520Disposed 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 …

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

2022 INSC 478Appeal(s) allowed

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.

2022 INSC 472Appeal(s) allowed

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

SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRSversusUNION OF INDIA

2022 INSC 450Appeal(s) allowed

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

RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASEversusMAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 437Case Partly allowed

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

UNION OF INDIAversusPREMLATA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 396Disposed 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 …

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

2022 INSC 394Appeal(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 …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJAN SOOD & ORS.

2022 INSC 362Appeal(s) allowed

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

LAXMIKANT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2022 INSC 336Appeal(s) allowed

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

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.versusN. SAVITHA

2022 INSC 330Appeal(s) allowed

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

JAI PARKASH ETC ETCversusUNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ETC ETC

2022 INSC 290Case Partly allowed

The Chandigarh Administration issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire about 63.70 acres of land for defence security forces, and the Land Acquisition Officer initially valued the land at Rs 6,87,837 per acre. The Reference Court enhanced this valuation to …

M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR.versusSATISH KUMAR BATRA AND ORS

2022 INSC 172Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents purchased land that had been subject to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and objections were filed by the predecessor‑in‑title, Gajanand Mali. While the predecessor’s writ appeals challenging the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications (Writ Appeal No. 447 …

WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

2022 INSC 146Case 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 …

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

2022 INSC 142Appeal(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 …

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

2022 INSC 78Disposed off

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

M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULLversusSRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.

2021 INSC 889Dismissed

The petitioner’s 29.38‑acre land in Bihar was initially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a 1981 notification and possession taken, later declared a protected forest. An award was passed in 2006, but the Supreme Court in August 2015 held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed …

SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2021 INSC 842Dismissed

The appellants, sons of M. Krishna Reddy, claimed that 8 guntas of land in Survey No.13, which they alleged was left out of a 1971 acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), had been illegally allotted to other parties. They filed writ petitions seeking cancellation of those …

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 827Appeal(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 …

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

2021 INSC 774Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 779Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 620Disposed 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 …

MUNUSAMYversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2021 INSC 572Case Partly allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 531Case Partly allowed

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

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

2021 INSC 501Disposed off

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

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

2021 INSC 384Appeal(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, …

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

2021 INSC 383Leave 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 …

SUKHBIRversusAJIT SINGH

2021 INSC 279Case Partly allowed

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

VED & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2021 INSC 234Dismissed

The petitioners sought higher compensation for land acquired for the Phase‑V Industrial Model Township at Manesar, arguing that the market value determined by the High Court—based on sale deeds (Exhibits P‑13, P‑24, P‑25) and the valuation in Madan Pal III—was too low. The High Court had applied a …

M/S ACQUAINTED REALTORS LLP ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

2021 INSC 235Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by landholders challenging the High Court's fixation of market value at Rs.43,61,400 per acre for agricultural lands acquired for the Phase‑VI Industrial Model Township at Manesar. The landholders argued that, given the proximity to the Kundli‑Manesar‑Palwal …

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

2021 INSC 201Appeal(s) allowed

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

MURALI ALIAS DHANANJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2021 INSC 139Appeal(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 …

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARDversusABDUL SALAM SARKAR (DEAD) AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 21Disposed off

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awarded compensation and solatium to Abdul Salam Sarkar (deceased) and others. The claimants sought interest on the solatium, which the reference court had not expressly rejected. The Madras High Court allowed the …

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNITversusP.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 688Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of notifications issued under Sections 2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 that declared a green‑field stretch (C‑K‑S) as National Highways NH‑179A and NH‑179B and authorised land acquisition for the Chennai‑Krishnagiri‑Salem corridor. The Court …

RAJ PAL SINGHversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK

2020 INSC 505Dismissed

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

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM/S. K.C. SHARMA & CO. & ORS.

2020 INSC 488Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against a Delhi High Court order that set aside a 1989 decree passed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which had awarded 87% of compensation to the respondents and 13% to the Gaon Sabha. The appellants alleged that the decree was obtained by …

HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUSTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 482Appeal(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 …

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

2020 INSC 315Appeal(s) allowed

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

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 294Reference 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 …

SADHNA CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2020 INSC 292Appeal(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. …

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

2020 INSC 141Dismissed

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 …

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

2020 INSC 139Disposed 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 …

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

2020 INSC 127Dismissed

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 …

MOHANDAS AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 105Dismissed

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

CHANABASAPPAversusKARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 64Disposed off

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

VIDYA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 23Appeal(s) allowed

Vidya Devi, an illiterate widow, had her 3.34‑hectare land taken by the Himachal Pradesh State in 1967‑68 for a road without any acquisition proceeding or compensation. The State later initiated acquisition only for neighbouring owners, leaving her claim unaddressed. Vidya filed a writ petition …

JITENDRA SINGHversusMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.

2019 INSC 1280Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2019 INSC 1184

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

NARESH KUMAR & ORS.versusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2019 INSC 1151Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award dated 01‑10‑2003 granted them compensation of Rs.1,97,08,397. On 14‑07‑2004 the Collector issued a "review" award reducing the compensation by Rs.49,39,195 on the ground that certain structures on the land were …

SHIV KUMAR & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 1142Dismissed

The petitioners purchased land in Delhi after a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued, and later sought a declaration under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 that the …

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 996Disposed off

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

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

2019 INSC 998Appeal(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, …

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusBALWANT SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 996Appeal(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 …

ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PARTNERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 961Appeal(s) allowed

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

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusMOHIUDDIN MASOOD AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 914Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusKANSHI RAM & ORS.

2019 INSC 906Remitted to Lower Court

The Himachal Pradesh government acquired 18-15 bighas of land for a road project after taking possession in 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed rates based on land classification, but the Reference Court later fixed a uniform compensation of Rs 7 lakhs per bigha relying on a sale deed …

NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 895Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners of about six kilometres of land in Surat, Gujarat, challenged the acquisition of 131 kilometres of land for the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor, arguing that the Competent Authority failed to comply with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 by not passing a …

RB DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE METRO RAILWAY, KOLKATA

2019 INSC 771

RB Dealers Private Limited owned land that was acquired for the Kolkata Metro project under the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. The competent authority initially awarded market value and a sum for the structure, which was later enhanced by the appellate authority to include a 12% …

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusDR. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN

2019 INSC 698Appeal(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 …

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

2019 INSC 702Appeal(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 …

RAMESHWAR DASSversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2019 INSC 366Disposed off

The State of Punjab acquired 14.49 acres of land in nine villages for the Satluj‑Yamuna canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation rates, which were enhanced by the Civil Court and subsequently by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the latter relying on the lead judgment in Hari …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusVIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS.

2019 INSC 287Matter referred to larger bench

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

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

2019 INSC 269Dismissed

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

WAZIR & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2019 INSC 45Disposed off

In 2002 the Haryana government acquired about 1,500 acres of land in six villages for the Manesar industrial township. The landowners challenged the compensation awarded under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market values fixed by the High Court – Rs 41.40 lakhs per …

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSHEELA RAMCHANDRA TIKHE

2018 INSC 1028Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2018 INSC 858Leave Granted & Allowed

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

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusK.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 798Appeal(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 …

K.S. RAJAN (D) THROUGH LRSversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2018 INSC 693Case Partly allowed

The case involved the acquisition of 4.30 acres of land belonging to K.S. Rajan in Kottayam, Kerala, under a 1980 notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs.4631 per cent for dry land, Rs.1725 per cent for …

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

2018 INSC 674Disposed 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 …

UNION OF INDIAversusDYAGALA DEVAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 638Appeal(s) allowed

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

VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

2018 INSC 584Disposed 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 …

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

2018 INSC 434Appeal(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 …

RAMSINGBHAI (RAMSANGBHAI) JERAMBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2018 INSC 405Dismissed

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

MOHAMMAD YUSUF AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 347Dismissed

The State of Haryana acquired 46 acres of land in Firozpur village for a Mini Secretariat under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The initial award valued the land at Rs 16 lakhs per acre, but a reference court enhanced the valuation to Rs 72 lakhs per acre and imposed a 60% deduction for development …

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

2018 INSC 306Dismissed

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 …

SIVAKAMI & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2018 INSC 226Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, owners of 1.52 acres of land, challenged a 1985 acquisition of their land by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition but gave no reasons or discussion of the issues. …

RAMESHWAR & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

2018 INSC 227Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for an industrial township, after which many landholders sold their land to private builders at inflated prices. The State later dropped the acquisition on 24 August 2007 and again on 29 January 2010, …

KHATOON & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.

2018 INSC 148Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired large tracts of land for industrial development under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prompting many landowners to file writ petitions challenging the acquisition. The Allahabad High Court, in Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P., upheld the acquisition but ordered …

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2018 INSC 115Directions issued

The case involved the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The main issue was whether non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) …

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

2018 INSC 103Dismissed

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 …

CHHABILDASversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2018 INSC 106Disposed 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 …

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

2018 INSC 66Case Partly allowed

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

SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2018 INSC 65Matter referred to larger bench

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

BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2017 INSC 1218Disposed off

The appellants sought re‑determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filing an application on 31‑12‑1992 based on a 1992 award. While the award was under appeal, the Land Acquisition Collector prematurely decided the application on 25‑10‑2000. After the High …

MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2017 INSC 1123Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants alleged that consent forms for land acquisition were obtained on blank documents in 1989, after which the State took possession and paid only 80-90% of the agreed compensation. The State delayed issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 until 1996 and …

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusTARUN PAL SINGH & ORS.

2017 INSC 1119Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) acquired land for a metro project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, completed the acquisition and paid full compensation before the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR Act) …

BIJENDER & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2017 INSC 1058Case Partly allowed

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

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRADIP KUMAR GHOSH & OTHERS

2017 INSC 1045Appeal(s) allowed

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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusRELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 945Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to acquire portions of two high‑rise buildings – the third floor of Reliance Centre and the second floor of the Express Building – where the land beneath the structures was owned by the Government or a Port Trust, but the buildings were owned by private parties. The …

MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

2017 INSC 1297Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals arising from the acquisition of 561.38 acres in Haryana where the High Court had fixed compensation at Rs.1.46 crore per acre by applying a 15% cumulative annual increase and relying heavily on the Swaran Singh judgment. The Court held that such reliance was …

NARENDRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 882Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs.50 per square yard, which was later increased to Rs.90 by the reference court. The High Court, after hearing other landowners, …

MAHAVIR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 877Dismissed

Petitioners Mahavir and others claimed that compensation for 100 acres of land acquired in the Raisina‑Lutyens zone in 1911‑12 had never been paid and sought relief under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013, which …

M/S AJAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSATYANARAYAN SOMANI AND ORS.

2017 INSC 806Disposed off

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

BIR WATI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 762Disposed off

The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased landowner, sought to challenge the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after their reference application under Section 18 was dismissed as time‑barred. They argued that, despite the dismissal, they were entitled to file an …

N. A. L. LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2017 INSC 725Appeal(s) allowed

The State acquired Survey No.50 in 1977‑78 and took physical possession on 23 March 1984, handing it over to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The land owners repeatedly challenged the acquisition, but the Karnataka High Court dismissed their writ petitions, finding that possession had been …

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

2017 INSC 645Case Partly allowed

The appellants' agricultural land was acquired for the Telugu Ganga Project in 1992 and they were initially compensated Rs 50‑70 per lime tree and Rs 32 per pomegranate tree. They obtained a modest enhancement of the tree compensation from the reference court, but sought further increase before the …

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

2017 INSC 595Case 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. …

UMA SHANKAR & ORS.versusR. HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 463Appeal(s) allowed

The land was acquired by the State in 1959 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and possession was taken in 1975. Subsequent resolutions sought to reconvey portions of the land to R. Hanumaiah, but the Supreme Court held in 2005 that once possession is taken, Section 48 cannot be used to de‑acquire …

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusSMT. KALLO BAI

2017 INSC 1287Dismissed

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, the owner of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak without a permit was seized and a confiscation order was made under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The lower courts held that confiscation could not occur …

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

2017 INSC 421Dismissed

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 …

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

2017 INSC 402Appeal(s) allowed

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

DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ANR.versusKIDARNATH MOHINDERNATH & ANR,

2017 INSC 293Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2017 INSC 166Appeal(s) allowed

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

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

2017 INSC 76Appeal(s) allowed

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

BALAKRISHNANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 1253Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, owned agricultural land that was acquired by the Kerala government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a techno‑park project. After the award fixed compensation, the appellant negotiated a higher amount with the acquiring authority and executed a sale deed, receiving …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

2016 INSC 1078Dismissed

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

RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMAREversusINDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 1075Dismissed

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

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2016 INSC 1079Disposed off

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

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHERversusMAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 897Disposed off

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

R. RAJASHEKAR AND ORS.versusTRINITY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.

2016 INSC 867Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the acquisition of agricultural lands by the Karnataka State Government for Trinity House Building Co‑operative Society, which had hired a middleman, M/s Srinivasa Enterprises, to secure the acquisition in its favour. The Court found that no housing scheme had been framed …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS

2016 INSC 864Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case involved land notified for acquisition in 1961, an award made in 1997, possession taken in 2000, and compensation that …

KEDAR NATH YADAVversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2016 INSC 639Appeal(s) allowed

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

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 1197Dismissed

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

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.versusRAJIV BERRY & ORS.

2016 INSC 589Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals arising from the acquisition of land for the expansion of the Uttarakhand Secretariat. The State of Uttarakhand invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, initially dispensing with the opportunity to object under …

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

2016 INSC 548Dismissed

The appellant's land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He entered into a consent agreement under the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 and accepted the full compensation on …

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

2016 INSC 467Appeal(s) allowed

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

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. NAIDU & ORS.

2016 INSC 462Directions issued

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

UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD.versusSANT SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 425Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a land‑acquisition case where the Haryana Urban Development Authority had notified acquisition of land for a public purpose, but a private builder, Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd., entered into agreements with farmers after the notification and obtained licences and release …

ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMEGH SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 383Disposed 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 …

VIJAY LATKA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2016 INSC 374Appeal(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 …

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusREENA SURI AND ORS.

2016 INSC 352Dismissed

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

LILAWATI AGARWAL ETC.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND ETC.

2016 INSC 294Appeal(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 …

GOA FOUNDATION & ANR.versusSTATE OF GOA & ANR.

2016 INSC 281Dismissed

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

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. JAYAMMA

2016 INSC 256Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the original owner retained actual possession and later sold the parcel to N. Jayamma in 1994. Jayamma built a house and, after more than twelve years, sued for a declaration of title on the basis of …

BALWAN SINGH & ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.

2016 INSC 250

The appellants, dispossessed of their land on 1 July 1984, sought interest for the period until the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 2 September 1993. The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions which held that while statutory interest under the Act is …

SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 251Appeal(s) allowed

Shakuntala Yadav and others owned 1.48 acres of land in village Sahaul, Gurgaon, and applied for release of the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming it fell within the Lal Dora area. The High Powered Committee rejected the request, stating that possession of the land had …

SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusSTATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 235

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 …

ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

2016 INSC 190Disposed off

The State of Haryana acquired 46.93 acres of land in Village Fatehpur for residential and commercial development. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.125 per square yard, arguing that similar adjoining properties had been awarded Rs.250 per square yard. The Court examined Section 25 of the …