Login
Subscribe

Land acquisition: Uniformity in the matter of award of compensation

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, 6 and 23 – Land acquisition – Market value –Held that a batch of cases has been remanded by this Court for reconsideration by the High Court and that those matters pertain to the same broader acquisition, though they possibly pertain to different projects – In a peculiar situation where some of the judgments of the High Court attained finality as the compensation amount, as enhanced, stands paid whereas the others are still subject matter of adjudication, deem it appropriate to remand these cases also to the High Court so that a holistic view pertaining to the subject acquisition, at least project wise, can be taken by the High Court – High Court will make an endeavour to infuse uniformity in the matter of award of compensation, to the extent it is possible, in accordance with law – High Court, while undertaking this exercise, will not reduce the compensation to a rate which has already been paid to some of the land owners and which has attained finality – The rest of the contentions from both sides are kept open to be gone into by the High Court -Parties directed to appear before the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench on 18.03.2024. (Para 14 to 17)

Advocate(s): Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Advocate, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Advocate, Ms. Disha Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate, for the Appellant;

Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Agam Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Nanda Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Dharm Singh, Advocate, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Advocates, Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate, Mr. Harshvardhan Malipatil, Advocate, Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Advocate, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Advocate, Mr. S. J. Amith, Advocate, Mrs. S. Anuradha Bhat, Advocate, Mr. Harisha S.R., Advocate, for the Respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2024 STPL(Web) 203 SC

[2024 INSC 208]

Executive Engineer, Knnl  Vs. Subhashchandra And Others

Civil Appeal No. 4053 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13065 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 9897 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 10982 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 14054 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 13826 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 13864 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 14053 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 14055 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13876 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14048 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13950 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13948 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13827 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14045 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13949 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13859 of 2022)’ Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13873 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13877 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11398 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10980 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10007 of 2022)’ Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10176 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9860 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11163 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024; (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10570 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11170 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14052 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14046 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13825 of 2022);Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14050 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12949 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13947 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10081 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10014 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2284 of 2023); Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2024) [Diary No(s).12213 of 2023] and Civil Appeal No. …. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2024) [Diary No(s).13231 of 2023]-Decided on 12-03-2024

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-203-SC.pdf

Share
Next Story

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

 

Next Story

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Share
Next Story

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965 – Rule 7 – Refund of Charges – Administrative Order – Statutory Rules – The present writ petition contested an order issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, reintroducing establishment charges under Rule 7 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965, despite their abolition by the Assam Bonded Warehouse (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

The Court held that executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules. Citing the principle established in K. Kuppusamy case, it ruled that until a rule is amended, it remains applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as ultra vires. Regarding refund, relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the Court directed the petitioner to present evidence to the Excise Commissioner, who would determine entitlement to refund within four months, considering whether the petitioner passed on the burden of charges to retailers. (Para 15)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 181 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1649 Gauhati]

M/S Centenary Distilleries P Ltd. Vs. State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

WP(C) 2875 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-181-Gauhati-2.pdf

 

Share
Next Story

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Land Disputes – Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts – The instant writ petition challenged a judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue concerning a land dispute. The dispute pertained to a plot of land associated with the Dargah of Pir Saheb. The Civil Court in Title Suit No.176/1978 had decreed in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, declaring their right, title, and possession over the land. The State of Assam was restrained from interference. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer issued a Khatian in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, and a new Dag was created. However, the Assam Board of Revenue, in its impugned judgment, disregarded the Civil Court’s decree and cancelled the Khatian issued to the Petitioners’ predecessor.

This action was deemed contrary to established principles, as Civil Court decrees are binding on Revenue Courts. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the Khatian to the Petitioners’ predecessor. (Para 12)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 180 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1648 Gauhati]

Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed Vs. State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 4701 of 2013-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-180-Gauhati.pdf

Share

Recent Articles

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram

© 2023 All Rights Reserved STPL Law | Powered by Traffic Tail Technologies Pvt. Ltd.