#Right to Property

The Bombay High Court ruled that indefinite reservation of private land under the MRTP Act, without initiating formal acquisition under Sections 49, 126, and 127, amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights. Authorities cannot rely on administrative delay or changed land use plans to avoid statutory acquisition - this decision binds all municipal bodies holding land in legal limbo for over four decades.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that denying landowners compensation on the grounds that 'regular acquisition was not acceptable' violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. This sets a critical precedent: administrative convenience cannot override constitutional obligations, and sympathetic ex-gratia payments cannot substitute for statutory compensation in public infrastructure projects.

Allahabad HC holds that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even if an alternate remedy exists, when there is a genuine fear of imminent coercive action like demolition. The court directed expeditious disposal of the petitioner's representation while granting interim protection against demolition.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that demolition of private property without prior notice, survey, or hearing violates constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and 300A. The court directed authorities to follow due process, reinforcing that arbitrary actions by Panchayat or government bodies are unconstitutional and subject to judicial scrutiny.

Bombay High Court rules that rights crystallized under a superseded Ministry of Defence circular cannot be undone by its subsequent abeyance.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.

Telangana High Court rules that an innocent vehicle owner, not accused under the NDPS Act, must be granted interim custody of their seized vehicle under Section 457 of the CrPC, subject to bond conditions. The ruling reinforces the right to property and limits arbitrary seizures in contraband cases.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that banks cannot freeze accounts or impose liens based solely on automated cybercrime alerts without an FIR, court order, or verified suspicious transaction. The judgment reinforces that constitutional protections under Article 300A require due process before restricting property rights, impacting account holders and financial institutions.

Rajasthan High Court rules banks cannot freeze accounts without prior notice or clear identification of the disputed amount, reinforcing due process under RBI Master Directions. The judgment mandates a seven-day response window from investigating agencies, failing which banks must release funds, protecting account holders from arbitrary freezes.

The Telangana High Court ruled that notices under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, must clearly specify the extent of encroachment and the legal basis for government claims. Vague notices violate constitutional rights under Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (fair procedure), entitling affected parties to interim relief. This judgment reinforces natural justice principles for landowners facing arbitrary administrative actions.

J&K High Court holds that state occupation of private land without acquisition violates Article 300A; mandates NHAI to initiate formal acquisition or restore possession.

The High Court of Telangana holds that undue delay in processing F-line applications for land survey and demarcation violates constitutional rights, mandating timely action under established guidelines.

Rajasthan High Court holds that undue delay in deciding patta applications violates fundamental rights; mandates decision within eight weeks under Article 226.

Telangana High Court restrains state from interfering with property possession without following due process, emphasizing Article 300-A compliance.

Telangana High Court holds that prolonged inaction on online land unblocking applications violates Article 300A; directs authorities to decide within four weeks.

Kerala High Court holds that seizure of vehicle without lawful authority or procedural compliance violates property rights under Article 300A and mandates compensation for illegal detention.