#constitutional right to property

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 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.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that the state's physical use of private land for public projects without compensation or notification breaches Article 300A, even if the landowner delays filing a claim. The judgment reinforces that due process and compensation are non-negotiable, regardless of procedural delays by the landowner.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the state’s physical occupation of private land for public infrastructure, even when excluded from the official acquisition award, violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. This sets a critical precedent: compensation is not contingent on procedural paperwork but on actual deprivation of land use, affecting thousands of landowners in informal acquisition scenarios across India.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that mere physical use of land for public projects-even if omitted from the acquisition award-activates the constitutional right to compensation under Article 300A. The court directed authorities to decide delayed claims within 30 days and disburse payment within six months of demarcation, reinforcing due process for landowners deprived of property without formal acquisition.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that the state cannot take possession of private land without following acquisition procedures or paying compensation, as it violates Article 300A. The court directed demarcation within 30 days and mandated compensation within five months if possession is confirmed, reinforcing property rights against arbitrary state action.