2025 SCC Vol. 5 Part 3
2025 SCC Vol. 5 Part 3: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on the Arbitration, IBC, CPC, Contract, Criminal Law, Education Law, Labour Law and Land Acquisition.
Land Acquisition
Development versus Environment Protection | Rajasthan High Court mandates to plant ‘10 trees for every one fell’ for development & beautification project
“A Master Plan is a policy document for guiding the future development of the cities or towns in a planned manner which cannot be modified or revised… at the whims and fancies of the authority concerned… It should be implemented in larger public interest.”
Proviso to S. 26(1) of 2013 Land Acquisition Act lays down method for computing land’s market value on the date of acquisition notification: SC
“Legislative intent behind proviso to Section 26(1) is to ensure that the landowners receive fair compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition”.
Madras High Court allows CMRL to acquire land near two Hindu temples for metro station construction
“Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness and benevolence for the development of a metro rail station, which will benefit lakhs of people from all segments of society, some of whom may well be devotees, who visit the temple.”
HIGH COURT FEBRUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on BAAZI Trade Mark; Fake Court Hearing Scam; LawSikho’s Defamation; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
‘Writ Petitions can’t be filed by raising mutually destructive pleas without any sense of responsibility’; Bombay HC dismisses speculative plea against land acquisition after 77 years
“Delay, laches, and disputed questions of fact are all matters that cannot be ignored when it comes to exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
SC reaffirms principles of ‘solatium’ & ‘interest’ laid down in Tarsem Singh, (2019); says clarification on prospective application will nullify its relief
The Court stated that modifying or clarifying the judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 would lend itself to violating the doctrine of immutability, undermining the finality of the decision.
2024 SCC Vol. 10 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 37: Setting aside of order setting aside award, by Court exercising jurisdiction under
Supreme Court upholds land acquisition for Yamuna Expressway; Justifies Invocation of Urgency Clause
Supreme Court directed that a 64.7% enhancement in compensation would apply in rem, ensuring that uniform benefits would be provided to all affected landowners under the present land acquisition process.
Arbitral Award treated as deemed decree; Execution can be initiated anywhere such decree can be executed: Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court reiterated that Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers.
Read why SC reversed Karnataka HC’s decision directing HMT & Defence Ministry to return acquired land to landowner’s successors
“Delay by the authorities, at times, may constitute a cause of action in itself. This would be especially true in a case of a live and continuing cause of action or in the event of failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty. It is, however, equally true that there can be cases where delay and laches would be fatal and can result in the dismissal of the writ petition.”
MUDA Scam | Karnataka HC finds no anomaly in the Gubernatorial Order according sanction against CM Siddaramaiah
Upholding the order, the Court stated that the Governor in the normal circumstance has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as obtaining under Article 163 of the Constitution, but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances and opined that the instant case was one such exception.
“No fundamental right violated over non-acquisition of land”; MP High Court dismisses plea challenging land exclusion
The Court noted that the land’s exclusion was based on expert recommendations and legal restrictions, including Regulation 119, which prohibits acquiring land within 45 meters of a railway or highway.
HIGH COURT AUGUST 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on Yuvraj Singh; Rajdeep Sardesai; Malabar Gold; International tax charges; and more
A quick review of reported cases this week from various High Courts across the country
Inside Bombay HC verdict ordering compensation to owner after 36 years since land acquisition by MHADA
No justification was offered for inordinate and insensitive delay and not paying any compensation for almost 36 years. Such conduct amounts to virtual expropriation of a citizen’s property without the authority of law and without paying any compensation and violates Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.
[Land Acquisition] Bombay HC directs Municipal Corporation to follow MRTP Act to acquire church’s land reserved for public purposes
The Court stated that until the Municipal Corporation resorted to appropriate procedure in law to acquire the disputed land, it should not disturb the peaceful possession of the Church in any manner whatsoever.
Procedural safeguards necessary before depriving a person of his property: SC lays down 7 procedural rights conferred on landowner by Art. 300A of Constitution
Supreme Court made it clear that acquisition of land without following the due procedure would be outside the authority of law.
‘State Govt best authority to protect temple’s right’; Rajasthan High Court affirms Devsthan Department’s control over temple land acquisition compensation
Rajasthan High Court held that “the Commissioner, being a Treasurer is empowered to exercise its control over the Temple and also to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of the Temple land.”
Calcutta High Court upholds the co-owners’ right to enhanced compensation in Land Acquisition case
Calcutta High Court: In a consolidated writ petitions challenging the Collector, Land Acquisition’s order denying enhanced compensation to the petitioners based on
Land Acquisition Compensation Rate | ‘11 years gap pretty large’: Supreme Court reduces 15% annual increase to 8%
Supreme Court considered what would be fair and just compensation to do justice between the parties so that landowners get a fair and reasonable compensation for losing their land.