#eminent domain

The Supreme Court ruled that landowners cannot bypass Section 5A proceedings and later challenge acquisition on grounds of denied hearing. The opportunity of hearing must be substantive, not just ritualistic, and procedural compliance suffices only if objections lack merit. This reinforces natural justice principles in eminent domain cases, impacting landowners, government agencies, and administrative law practitioners.

Allahabad High Court holds that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not shield pre-1947 religious structures from land acquisition under eminent domain. Tenants and occupants lack locus standi to challenge such acquisitions, reinforcing state authority over public infrastructure projects.

Allahabad HC reaffirms that landowners must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act before approaching writ courts for compensation disputes. The ruling underscores that bypassing the District Level Committee under the 2016 Government Order constitutes an abuse of judicial process, binding stakeholders to the prescribed administrative mechanism.

The Rajasthan High Court has ordered Power Grid Corporation to deposit ₹1.22 crore as provisional compensation for right-of-way acquisition over private land, while preserving the landowner’s right to seek full fair market value under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This sets a critical precedent for infrastructure projects: provisional payments cannot substitute the statutory right to just compensation, ensuring landowners are not left financially stranded during prolonged valuation disputes.

Bombay HC rules that compensation for acquired land must reflect its highest and best use, not just current agricultural status. The court emphasized that market value should account for non-agricultural potential, ensuring fair recompense for landowners under eminent domain.

Bombay High Court holds that semi-irrigated land must be compensated at rates higher than dry land, and 80% of private valuer reports must be accepted where unchallenged.

Bombay High Court holds that state authorities must provide notice and hearing before mutating land records under rehabilitation laws, affirming natural justice in eminent domain cases.