#compensation delay

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.

Orissa High Court reinforces that once a compensation enhancement order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is finalized, administrative delays cannot override judicial directives. The court directed the state to sanction and disburse the 27-year-old enhanced compensation by July 2026, with 9% interest from 1979, upholding the constitutional right to property against procedural bottlenecks.

Calcutta HC rules that a valid land acquisition award passed under the repealed 1894 Act remains enforceable even if the proceedings lapse under Section 25(2) of the 2013 Act. The judgment clarifies that award validity prevails over statutory lapse, protecting landowners' compensation rights despite procedural delays.

The Bombay High Court ruled that landowners are entitled to compensation for surplus land taken beyond the area specified in the final award, where authorities later confirmed its actual use in infrastructure projects. This establishes that post-award utilization, even if unaccounted for initially, cannot deprive owners of fair payment under the Act’s beneficent framework.

Bombay High Court rules that a declaration under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, automatically lapses if compensation proceedings are not initiated within three years. The judgment reinforces landowners' rights against indefinite government restrictions without timely compensation, setting a critical precedent for similar disputes.

Gauhati High Court rules that landowners (pattadars) are entitled to restoration of land and accrued requisition rent where authorities occupy land without valid acquisition or compensation disbursement, even if compensation was deposited but not paid. The judgment reinforces Article 300A protections against unlawful state possession and mandates restitution for affected landowners.

Calcutta High Court holds that statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 accrues from dispossession, irrespective of litigation delays caused by third parties.

Bombay High Court holds that delayed payment of compensation after land acquisition violates Article 300A; mandates immediate payment with interest and systemic reform.

Bombay High Court holds that taking possession of land without paying compensation violates constitutional rights; directs NHAI to file reply and appear personally.

Bombay High Court holds that land must be lawfully acquired before utilization for public projects; officers cannot shift burden to landowners.