Rajasthan High Court directs authorities to comply with land acquisition award granting 25% developed land within three weeks, emphasizing timely execution of compensation.
Gauhati High Court holds that limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction; failure to frame issue despite specific plea renders award void. Key precedent from *Noharlal Verma* applied.
Bombay High Court holds that only the Central Government can notify multiplier factors under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for national highway projects, invalidating state notifications.
Bombay High Court holds that open space adjacent to acquired land, if essential for utilisation and proven to belong to owner, attracts compensation under Article 300-A and Land Acquisition Act.
The Rajasthan High Court holds that challenges to land acquisition awards after 27 years are barred by delay and laches, affirming finality of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Chhattisgarh High Court mandates arbitration authorities to decide pending land acquisition compensation claims within four months, reinforcing statutory timelines under the Arbitration Act.
Gauhati High Court holds that once land vests under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, it cannot be returned even if unused. Compensation must be paid.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that landowners may object only to the three grounds under Section 15 of the LARR Act 2013; technical clearances are not mandatory for objection submission.
Madras High Court holds that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entitles landowners to seek parity in compensation when others in similar circumstances receive higher awards.
Bombay High Court holds that TDR cannot replace monetary compensation under Section 35 of MMRDA Act; violation of Article 300A renders acquisition illegal.
Bombay High Court holds that land must be lawfully acquired before utilization for public projects; officers cannot shift burden to landowners.
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.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that authorities must decide rehabilitation claims before eviction; coercive action barred pending decision.
Karnataka High Court holds that land compensation cannot be equalized across adjoining villages; market value must be determined by local transactions and guidance values.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that land acquisition disputes require proper survey demarcation before eviction, ensuring natural justice and fair compensation under LARR Act 2013.