Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
498 judgments · newest first · showing 401–498
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 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 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 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 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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
The Department of Land and Building initiated land acquisition proceedings in 1986 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the award declared on 14 September 1986 and possession taken on 22 September 1986. Compensation to the co‑owners was never paid because of an inter‑se dispute among them. The …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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 …
The Supreme Court examined the meaning of “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) with reference to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). The …
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 …
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged arbitral awards that enhanced compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, arguing that the arbitrator improperly relied on post‑acquisition guideline values and failed to give sufficient reasons, violating Sections 28(2) …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared the land acquisition proceedings concerning 28 Bigha 8 Biswa of village Sahoorpur to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, directing the purchaser, Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., to pay Rs 16,61,774. …
The Delhi Administration sought to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing notices under ss. 4 and 6 and awarding the acquisition in 1987. The original owner’s writ petition was dismissed, and the land was later purchased by the respondent on 25‑Nov‑2011, after the award. The …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment that the land acquisition proceedings for its mega‑market project had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (KMC) sought to acquire land reserved in the 1999 Development Plan for public purposes, but the land remained unacquired for over ten years. The landowners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP …
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, …
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 …
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 …
The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project (the State agency) acquired land under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, but the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act came into force before an award was made. The landowners challenged the award dated 30 October 2014, …
The appellants were served with show‑cause notices alleging encroachment on land forming part of a National Highway. The notices were issued under Section 28(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 and were said to be backed by a notification issued under Section 5 of the National Highways …
The case concerned whether Anadi Nath Banerjee, whose land was acquired for the Sonepur Bazari Open Cast Project, was entitled to employment under a tripartite agreement that promised jobs to land‑losers possessing at least two acres. The Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate recorded Banerjee’s …
The Tamil Nadu legislature enacted three land‑acquisition statutes (1978, 1997 and 2001) which were later held repugnant to the Central Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Madras High Court declared the three state statutes …
The Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) sought to acquire land of Gillapukri Tea Company for a plastic park. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in 2008‑2009 and the award and estimate were sent to the State Government on 30‑Jan‑2010. The …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The petition under Article 32 sought a court‑ordered investigation into the disappearance of the keys to the Ratna Bhandar of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, and directions for the preservation, management and inventory of the temple’s valuables, as well as provision of express darshan for devotees. …
The Supreme Court examined a land acquisition proceeding initiated under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a Vasant Kunj residential scheme, where Jagjiwan Cooperative Group Housing Society claimed ownership of 42 bighas 16 biswas of land in Mehrauli, Delhi. The High Court had upheld …
The 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 …
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 …
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 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 …
The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) acquired 168.592 hectares of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Sitapur City Extension Scheme. Gopal Das sought restoration of 1.2 hectares of the acquired land under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and …
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 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 …
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 …
The State of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquire land for a road project. The landowners (appellants) filed objections to the acquisition within the time prescribed by …
The appellants, managers of private aided schools, challenged the Kerala government's decision to take over their schools under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, arguing that the schools had already been closed and that the provision conflicted with the Right to Fair Compensation and …
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) …
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) …
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 …
The Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee sought to acquire 42 acres 32 guntas of land in Bangalore for expanding its marketing yard. The acquisition, notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20 May 2002, faced challenges from landowners alleging procedural defects, …
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, sought to acquire land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) and issued preliminary and final notifications in 2000 and 2005. The respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that no award under Section 11-A of the 1894 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
The State of Jharkhand issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the construction of the Kharkai Dam. After a pre‑bid meeting ten firms participated, but stringent clauses reduced the field to three bidders, of whom only M/s CWE‑SOMA was responsive. The tender committee, invoking clause 4.18(d) of …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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 …
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the award predates the 2013 Act by at least five years and either …
The Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society challenged the compulsory acquisition of its 14.90 acres of land by the State of Punjab under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award of Rs 35,52,528 was made in 1995 but never paid to the society and was only deposited in the State …
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 …
The State of Bihar initiated acquisition of land belonging to M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull in 1981 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking possession but failing to publish an award. Subsequent notifications in 1995‑96 attempted a fresh acquisition. The High Court held that the 1981 …
The appellants, land owners, challenged acquisition proceedings originally under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and after the 2013 Act came into force, sought a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and …
The Supreme Court examined the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It held that an acquisition proceeding is deemed to have lapsed when an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, …
The Supreme Court examined whether acquisitions made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It held that a declaration of lapse requires a …
M/s Magnum Promoters Ltd., the owner of land in Delhi, challenged acquisition notifications issued under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that no physical possession was taken and compensation was not paid, invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in …
The appellants, a residents' association, challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a canal scheme, where an award was made on 30‑Nov‑2006 but physical possession of the land was never taken and the proceedings were stayed by the courts. The Right to …
The appellant challenged land acquisition of 10.80 acres undertaken under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966. An award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1968, later set aside by the High Court in 1974 only on compensation grounds. While the proceedings were pending, Section 11A …
The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a large tract of land in Delhi. Tenure‑holders had filed objections under Section 5‑A, which were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector but the report was prepared by his successor, prompting …
The Pune Municipal Corporation initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a notification in 2004, a declaration in 2005 and making an award on 31 January 2008. The award was not paid to the landowners nor deposited in court; the compensation amount was …
