Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21 R. 95: Starting point of limitation application under Or. 21 R. 95, by auction-purchaser for
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 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.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 427 — Consecutive or concurrent running of sentences: Normal rule is that such subsequent sentence shall
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.
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.
‘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.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 451 and 457: In this case, civil suit was pending between financier of vehicle
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 31 — Expropriation of private property by State — Compensation — Entitlement: State
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court
Army Act, 1950 — Ss. 125, 126, 69, 3(ii) and 70 — Criminal trial — Concurrent jurisdiction of court martial
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that in a case where on the date of
“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.”
Patna High Court: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J., allowed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the entire proceeding of land acquisition and
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V J., allowing the present writ petition, held that the provisions for compensation and payment of interest
Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed by petitioners before the Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,
Orissa High Court: The Bench of S. Panda and P. Patnaik, JJ., dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner for the cancellation
Allahabad High Court: This writ petition was filed before a Divison Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.,