Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioners’ claim faced significant delays spanning decades without satisfactory explanation hence, no relief can be granted to Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution.

Delay in compensation payments, amounting to over three decades, weakens any arguments regarding delay and laches hence, Respondents ought to initiate process for acquisition of piece of land to determine and pay compensation to Petitioners under Act.

Impugned order rejecting application under Section 28-A of Act for want of certified copy and also holding barred by limitation set aside and matter remitted back to Respondent No.2 to decide application under Section 28A of Act.

State Government directed to notify lapsing of reservation by an order to be published in Official Gazette as per the requirement of Section 127(2) of Act.

Provision of Section 30A was found to comply with Article 14, as it does not exhibit discriminatory practices and takes into account public health and safety in permitting process hence, legislative framework governing these lands was deemed constitutionally valid and reasonable.

Court reinforced necessity of upholding integrity of Civil Courts decree concerning this land, despite withdrawal of prior petitions, maintaining that proceedings under Section 54 of Code should not delay execution of partition decree for Survey No.80/3.

Impugned judgment is modified to extend that Respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- instead of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of land, with all statutory benefits.

Respondents are mandated to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs. 165 per sq.ft. along with 12% per annum from notification date until award date.

Petitioners' significant delay in seeking relief some since 1975 and resurfacing only in 2022-2023 renders their claims stale and non-viable under Article 226 of Constitution.

Executing court made a legal error by not establishing issues and allowing Appellant to present evidence that auctioned property is joint family property, purchased with joint family funds.

Appellants holding various agreements cannot make independent claims against Society or its affiliates once prior developers rights have been lawfully terminated under Development Agreement.

Circular from an administrative department does not constitute law simply because it was issued by a government officer.

Evidence presented by Plaintiff was inadequate to prove joint cultivation of property by sisters hence, decisions made by Trial Court and first Appellate Court were quashed, leading to dismissal of Regular Civil Suit.

If sale instance is of period of one year and more prior to acquisition of land, addition to consideration is required to be given.

Legal heirs of deceased, particularly of tribal community, are entitled for equal share in suit property.

As Trial Court neglected to determine issue which is crucial and restricts sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists, but does provide exceptions, justifying remand of matter to trial court.

Tahsildar acted beyond legal authority when entertaining an application and his actions were based on an unfounded claim of fraud related to a certificate issued in 1960, making his jurisdictional exercise invalid.

Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate stands confirmed with modification that Plaintiff shall deposit amount of purchase price prescribed in decree with simple interest at rate of 6% p.a.

Merely on political opinions or on unsubstantiated newspaper reports, petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff-firm has failed to establish cause of action against Defendants for claiming title by adverse possession, leading to rejection of Interim Application.