2023 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21 R. 95: Starting point of limitation application under Or. 21 R. 95, by auction-purchaser for
Land Acquisition Act
Supreme Court upholds validity of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
The Supreme discussed the very foundation of Article 254(2) of the Constitution and commented that comparing two legislations of State and Centre would be akin to comparing chalk and cheese, i.e., two essentially unequal entities.
Can orders be reviewed for relying on a judgment subsequently overruled by a superior Court? Supreme Court division bench delivers split verdict
The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
2023 SCC Vol. 3 Part 2
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 427 — Consecutive or concurrent running of sentences: Normal rule is that such subsequent sentence shall
Land Acquisition| In public purpose schemes, Authority should be given the time allotted to it by the Statute for doing certain things: Supreme Court
Supreme Court held that Madhya Pradesh High Court was not justified in quashing the entire Scheme providing for other connected land use, on the ground that the same has lapsed under Section 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.
Classification of ‘pushtaini’ and ‘gair-pushtaini’ landholders bad in law, creates dissonance between Land Acquisition Act’s object and effect: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court opined that even if such a classification had a rational nexus to the objective of the notification, the classification must also be legitimized by the parent statute.
Delay in land acquisition compensation; Gurgaon District Court attaches Executive Engineer’s office
‘The bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.' Gurgaon Civil Court orders attachment of the office of Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) due to delay in compensation against land acquired in 1966.
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 4
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 451 and 457: In this case, civil suit was pending between financier of vehicle
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 4
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 31 — Expropriation of private property by State — Compensation — Entitlement: State
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 2
Army Act, 1950 — Ss. 125, 126, 69, 3(ii) and 70 — Criminal trial — Concurrent jurisdiction of court martial
Land Acquisition| Compensation under 2013 Act cannot be claimed if award under 1894 Act couldn’t be passed due to pendency of proceedings or interim stay: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that in a case where on the date of
Notification to exempt land from acquisition under LA Act is not a quasi-judicial order; will not confer any vested rights to the landowner: Supreme Court
“It is trite to point out that an order secured by fraud and misrepresentation will not confer any vested right and that, therefore, the land owners cannot pitch their claim either on the basis of vesting or on the basis of Article 300A.”
Pat HC | Land acquisition proceedings quashed as Authorities fail to take physical possession of land and pay compensation as required under Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Patna High Court: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J., allowed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the entire proceeding of land acquisition and
Ker HC | Interest on solatium provided under Land Acquisition Act applies unequivocally to acquisition made under NHAI Act
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V J., allowing the present writ petition, held that the provisions for compensation and payment of interest
All HC | 3 months time for filing application under S. 28-A of Land Acquisition Act to start from date of award passed by Reference Court and not the Appellate Court
Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed by petitioners before the Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,
Ori HC | Possession of land taken under Land Acquisition Act cannot be restored to tenure holder even if it is not used for the purpose it was acquired for
Orissa High Court: The Bench of S. Panda and P. Patnaik, JJ., dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner for the cancellation
All HC | Order dismissing first writ petition operates as res judicata; second petition on same facts not allowed
Allahabad High Court: This writ petition was filed before a Divison Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.,
P&H HC | S. 28-A of Land Acquisition Act not an adversarial form of adjudication; fair compensation to be determined for all landowners
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This writ petition was filed before the Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, J., against the award passed by