Topic
Article 300A of the Indian Constitution protects the right to property by requiring the state to provide compensation before depriving any person of their property, even if not covered by land acquisition laws.
Telangana HC ordered revenue authorities to delete land entries based on a Waqf Gazette set aside by the court, holding their retention violates Article 300A and binds the State and Waqf Board to comply, shielding landowners from wrongful Wakf classifications.
Bombay High Court ruled that a land acquisition award amended via corrigendum after 31 years is void if due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was bypassed. The Court directed fresh compensation proceedings, reinforcing that procedural compliance is non-negotiable even for decades-old acquisitions, impacting landowners and government agencies alike.
Bombay High Court holds that MHADA lacks statutory authority to include co-operative housing societies in cluster redevelopment under DCPR 33(9) without their consent, as it violates lease rights and constitutional protections under Article 300A. The ruling reinforces that state agencies cannot override property rights without explicit legal backing.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that landlords asserting proprietary rights under Article 300A must first submit a formal representation to the State under Section 43(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act before seeking judicial intervention. This establishes a mandatory administrative gateway, preventing direct writ petitions and reinforcing procedural due process in land disputes involving tenancy restrictions.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that taking possession of land beyond the area specified in the acquisition award violates Article 300A of the Constitution, entitling landowners to a supplementary compensation award. This sets a binding precedent for all government projects in Maharashtra, requiring strict adherence to awarded land boundaries and immediate redress for unauthorized takings.
The Kerala High Court ruled that banks cannot freeze accounts based solely on police requisition; they must follow established SOPs for cybercrime-related freezes and comply with the Abdul Azeez guidelines, ensuring a quantified grievance mechanism and proportional relief. This binds all financial institutions to procedural safeguards under Article 300A and BNSS, preventing arbitrary deprivation of property.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a conditional stay on a land acquisition award is automatically nullified if the required deposit of the awarded amount plus interest is not made within the stipulated time. This removes legal immunity for delaying compensation and obligates executing courts to proceed with enforcement immediately, safeguarding claimants' constitutional right to timely payment under Article 21.
The Kerala High Court ruled that banks cannot freeze accounts based solely on police requisition; lien must be restricted to the exact amount claimed and only imposed if there is specific suspicion of cybercrime or money mule activity. This protects innocent account holders from arbitrary financial disruption and reinforces due process under Article 300A and BNSS Section 106.
Allahabad HC rules that coercive action under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, against bonafide purchasers without prior notice violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The court emphasized that procedural fairness requires affording an opportunity to be heard, even if the property mutation is pending in revenue records.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has struck down the cancellation of industrial land allotment issued without notice or opportunity to be heard, declaring it arbitrary and unconstitutional. This ruling reinforces that even inadvertent procedural lapses by state agencies violate fundamental rights to fair procedure and property, setting a critical precedent for all public land allotments across India.
Bombay HC ruled that Rule 13.3.1.5 of Pune Development Control Rules, offering ₹1 as compensation for private open spaces, is unconstitutional under Article 300A. The court affirmed that deprivation of property must be accompanied by just compensation, setting a precedent for municipal land acquisition disputes.
Calcutta High Court rules that prolonged state possession of private land without lawful acquisition or compensation violates Article 300A. The court mandates fresh proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, rejecting delay as a defense where no legal authority exists for retention.
Bombay High Court rules that unilateral possession of land under a negotiated acquisition agreement triggers an immediate obligation to pay compensation, even if the formal acquisition process is incomplete. The judgment reinforces Article 300A protections, mandating Rs. 30.91 crore disbursement to the petitioner for land taken in 2019, setting a precedent for government and public body interactions in land acquisition disputes.
Bombay High Court rules that rights crystallized under a superseded Ministry of Defence circular cannot be undone by its subsequent abeyance. The court quashed a stop work notice and denial of an occupation certificate, emphasizing that Defence NOC demands must be legally grounded and uniformly applied, not retroactively enforced.
Rajasthan High Court rules that once full ownership of land is transferred, the State cannot impose subsequent restrictions on its sale or diversification, as such conditions infringe Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act and Article 300A of the Constitution. The judgment reinforces the absolute nature of property rights post-transfer, curbing arbitrary governmental interference.