Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act runs from disposal of a Section 33 request, not the original award.
The Court held that no writ of mandamus should be issued to direct acquisition under Section 14 because acquisition powers are subject to the landowner's preferential right to redevelop (and Respondent No.4 had validly submitted a proposal after the injunction preventing schemes on reserved open spaces lifted); the appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the final sale building provided it hands over the Dark Green portion of 2700 sq. mts. reserved as Recreational Ground, and the appellant has been fully compensated by the grant of adequate area/FSI for sale; further, the Subj…
Source excerpt
The Court held that under Chapter I-A of the Slums Act an owner has a preferential right to redevelop an SR Area and that the SRA must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit an SR Scheme and provide cooperation; acquisition under s.14 read with s.3D(c)(i) cannot be proceeded with while the owners preferential right subsists and where the owner was not given the required opportunity acquisition is void; on the facts the acquisition of the Subject Land was set aside because ICM had not been invited/opportunity was impeded and was willing to redevelop.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court and High Court erred in failing to consider the highest bona-fide sale exemplar (Sr. No.4 dated 31-03-1990, Rs.72,900/- per Acre) which was proximate to the date of notification; averaging was impermissible given the wide range of exemplars, and Section 51A and absence of rebuttal evidence supported reliance on the exemplar. While accepting Sr. No.4, a 20% deduction was applied because the exemplars were for small plots and the acquired land was larger; accordingly compensation was enhanced to Rs.58,320/- per Acre with consequential statutory be…
Source excerpt
The impugned High Court order and this Court’s decision in Reddy Veerana were procured by fraud and suppression of material facts by Reddy; fraud vitiates such judgments and is an exception to the doctrine of merger, hence the impugned order is set aside, the Supreme Court decision recalled, and the writ petition remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication with impleadment of co-owners, while the writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable on its pleaded grounds.
Source excerpt
The respondents (oustees) are not entitled as a matter of legal right to allotment at the 1992 policy rates; at best they may seek allotment under the 2016 policy. Suits under Section 39 require the plaintiff to show enforceable legal obligation and to have complied with preconditions of the policy (e.g. prescribed application and earnest money) such that a court can exercise its discretionary power to grant mandatory relief. The Supreme Court directed HUDA to permit eligible respondents to apply under the 2016 policy within specified timelines and process those applications.
Source excerpt
The market value of land for acquisition under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 must be determined as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 11 of the Act; the courts do not have discretion to choose an alternative date, and the enactment date 01 January 2014 is not relevant to fresh acquisitions.
Source excerpt
Because the appellant did not possess or prove a valid Change of Land Use (CLU) for land situated in a notified controlled area, release of the land from acquisition could not be granted and the plea of discrimination failed; however, on the special facts that the appellant claims continuous physical possession and the department did not satisfactorily controvert that, the Court under Article 142 directed that compensation payable be calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as on the date of commencement of…
Source excerpt
The Court accepted Exhibits 53 and 44 as genuine and comparable exemplars (Exhibit 53 being a bona fide sale proximate in time and situation, and Exhibit 44 being a pre-notification allotment), concluded the High Court's rate of Rs.53 per sq. metre was low, applied applicable deductions for development (30%) and the guidance from Chimanlal and Mehta, and fixed compensation at Rs.107 per square metre while directing statutory benefits (solatium, severance, interest) as previously ordered.
Source excerpt
For acquisitions under the 2013 Act the market value must be computed under s.26(1); where Clauses (b) and (c) do not apply and Clause (a) (market value as specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899) yields the highest value, that circle rate constitutes the market value; absent a recorded opinion by the Collector under Explanation 4 to discount or enhance that value, the theory of deduction cannot be applied to reduce the compensation, and the award based on the circle rate (with assets and solatium added) is to be upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
