Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Land Acquisition Act, 1984

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC.

1990 INSC 33030 October 1990Dismissed

The contractors, Orient Paper and Straw Products, had exclusive licences to cut bamboo in government forests under contracts that were to expire in September 1989. The Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 and its subsequent amendments (1987 and 1989) together with notifications dated 21 September 1988 res

BENEDICT DENIS KINNYversusTULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS.

2020 INSC 32019 March 2020Dismissed

The appellants challenged High Court orders that allowed elected councillors, whose caste validity certificates were rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to retain their seats pending judicial review. Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act provides that failure to submit a caste validity certificate wi

SAJANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 30217 March 2020Case Partly allowed

The appellants, a partnership firm operating a sugar mill, challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for the Hiwra Dam project, arguing that the market value of the land and the deductions for development costs were incorrectly determined by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the reference court's v

GULZARA SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1993 INSC 19011 May 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the method for fixing market value of 90 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The claimants relied on various sale deeds, including a recent high‑price transaction, while the State relied on mutation entries. The Court held that only bona‑fide sales of comparable land

ASHRAFI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 24011 April 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals concerning compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Haryana. The Court examined the method of determining market value, the appropriateness of deductions for development costs, the use of the belting system, and the manner of applying annual infl

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusDEVANDER SAGAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 6477 September 2015Disposed off

The State of Haryana issued a Section 4 notification on 18‑Jan‑2001 to acquire land and invoked the urgency provisions of Section 17(1) and (4) without first tendering the statutorily required 80% compensation. A Section 6 declaration followed on 19‑Jan‑2001, but the land‑owners filed writ petitions challenging the not

ADDL. DISTT. MAGISTRATE (REV.) DELHI ADMN. ETC.versusSHRI SIRI RAM ETC.

2000 INSC 2895 May 2000Dismissed

The Delhi Administration appealed a Delhi High Court order that had quashed amendments made by a 1989 notification to Rules 49, 63, 65, 67 and Form P‑5 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules. The amendments excluded certain categories of land, such as "Extended Abadi", from being entered in the record‑of‑rights and annual reg

M/S. JAGAN SINGH & CO.versusLUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS.

2022 INSC 8992 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Ludhiana Improvement Trust acquired land from several owners but failed to pay the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The owners filed execution proceedings, leading to the attachment and auction of the property to M/s. Jagan Singh & Co. for Rs. 22.65 lakhs in 1992. The Trust later sought to set

Search Indian case law

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

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