Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 37: Setting aside of order setting aside award, by Court exercising jurisdiction under
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.
Allahabad High Court reiterated that Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers.
“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.”
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.
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.
A quick review of reported cases this week from various High Courts across the country
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.
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.
Supreme Court made it clear that acquisition of land without following the due procedure would be outside the authority of law.
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: In a consolidated writ petitions challenging the Collector, Land Acquisition’s order denying enhanced compensation to the petitioners based on
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.
In the case at hand, the Subject land was assigned to landless Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation in 1960s who then transferred the land to a third party for consideration, violating the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
Allahabad High Court said that as the compensation has already been assessed by the authorities to the tune of Rs. 1,33,05,600/-, thus no question arises for interfering for awarding higher compensation
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.
The Supreme Court observed that the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the State Government to Anil Agarwal Foundation for setting up Vedanta University were vitiated by favourism and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court refused to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India keeping in view that the Bullet Train Project is an Infrastructural Project of national importance.