Land Acquisition Act 1894
5 articles
Parity, Severance and the Limits of Solatium: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 5 Lakh an Acre for the Aspal Extension Drain Acquisition
A 47-appeal batch on land taken for a drain in Fazilka. The Supreme Court rejects a distance-based valuation model, moves the severance baseline to the land left behind, and reaffirms that solatium attaches only to the value of the land.
14 min readA Specific Performance Decree Cannot Resurrect Acquired Land: Karnataka High Court Holds the Military Land Register Conclusive Against a 1995 Agreement to Sell
In Union of India v. Mohsin Sharieff, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed a writ order that had restored a private buyer's name to the revenue records of land acquired in 1943 for the Yelahanka Air Force Station. Reading the acquisition file as one continuous chain and applying the nemo dat principle, the Bench held that a decree to which the Defence authorities were not party could not create title.
14 min readSupreme Court: A Section 28A Compensation Claim Runs From the Reference Court's Award, Not From an Appeal That Merely Repeats an Earlier One
In New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rajveer Singh, the Supreme Court rejected a Section 28A claim filed after a second appellate order that simply followed an earlier appellate enhancement in the same village, holding that the three-month limitation had already run from the first enhancement and could not be revived by a later order adding nothing new.
13 min readSupreme Court Fixes the Cut-Off Date for Solatium in National Highway Land Acquisitions
Deciding a long-running dispute over which compensation regime governs highway land acquisitions, the Supreme Court has held that the reference date is the Competent Authority's own determination of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 — not the date the acquisition proceedings began, and not a later arbitral award on a disputed quantum.
13 min readA Bankrupt Developer's Lease Penalty Is Not the Homebuyers' Debt, Supreme Court Holds
When a NOIDA-leased housing project collapsed into insolvency, the development authority sought years of penalty charges for the developer's own delay from the very homebuyers who had pooled their savings to finish construction. The Supreme Court says the penalty stays with the developer.
13 min read