#Article 300-A

Bombay High Court rules that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse if the Section 6 declaration is not issued within one year of the Section 4 notification. The court directed a fresh compensation calculation for land acquired in 1960, adjusting the notification date to 26.08.2011 to balance landowners' rights and public interest, setting a precedent for timely compliance with procedural timelines.

A compromise recorded in Lok Adalat that fails to specify whether acquired land is irrigated or dry does not preclude a subsequent challenge to the classification under the Land Acquisition Act. This ruling protects landowners’ right to accurate compensation by ensuring that procedural settlements cannot silently extinguish substantive rights tied to land type, impacting hundreds of pending acquisition cases across Maharashtra.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that consent for land acquisition under the Integrated Township Policy, 2023, must be aggregated across the entire project area, not counted separately per village. This sets a critical precedent for large-scale urban development projects, ensuring that developers cannot circumvent community consent by fragmenting acquisition into smaller geographic units.

Bombay HC rules that land acquisition proceedings automatically lapse under Section 11A of the 1894 Act if no award is declared within two years, even if the land is later developed. The owner retains rights under the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013, reinforcing constitutional protections under Article 300-A against procedural delays.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that long-standing possession, even if undocumented, entitles occupants to due process under Article 300-A before eviction. The judgment prohibits arbitrary demolition or dispossession by state or private actors, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against forced displacement without legal procedure.

Telangana High Court ruled that authorities must either cancel a disputed pattadar pass book for government poramboke land or risk recognizing the petitioner’s rights under Article 300-A. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice, directing a six-week status quo to prevent dispossession without due process, setting a precedent for land record disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court condoned a 3952-day delay in filing a land acquisition appeal, holding that parity among similarly situated landowners under Article 300-A justifies overriding procedural technicalities. The court granted enhanced compensation to the appellant’s legal heirs but denied interest for the delayed period, reinforcing that substantive justice prevails over rigid limitation rules in land acquisition disputes.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that any state vesting of property under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, without a compensation mechanism violates Article 300-A of the Constitution. The judgment underscores that compensation is not merely procedural but a constitutional necessity, affecting landowners facing uncompensated acquisitions. This holding reinforces the principle of natural justice in property rights cases.

Allahabad High Court holds that acquisition lapses if 80% compensation is not paid before possession and land remains unutilised for years, invalidating auction and mandating restoration.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that sale deeds executed after forest notification cannot confer title; rights to forest land require Central Government approval under FC Act, 1980.

High Court of Telangana grants interim suspension of ROR mutation orders where Special Tribunal erroneously dismissed appeal based on non-existent pending civil suit.

CAT Jammu holds pension cannot be reduced post-retirement without fraud or misrepresentation; last drawn pay is decisive under Rule 242 CSR.

High Court of Telangana holds that once terminal benefits are sanctioned via official token numbers, withholding them violates Article 300-A and Article 14 of the Constitution.

J&K and Ladakh HC holds that unauthorized state possession of private land violates Article 300-A; delay and laches cannot justify illegal occupation without due process.

Telangana High Court restrains state from interfering with property possession without following due process, emphasizing Article 300-A compliance.