Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Ramkrishna Sahu S/o Late Gopal Rai Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
1. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
2. As per the pleadings of the appellant/petitioner, he is recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2208/1 area 0.78 acres situated at Village Dabhara, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Dabhara. In the year 1979, possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities for construction of Dabhara-Saradih Road, but, till date the respondents authorities have not paid any compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land. The appellant also made representation before the authorities, but till date, no compensation is given against the acquired land. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 2735 of 2019 before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide o
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
Inordinate delay undermines claims for compensation in land disputes unless justified.
The duty to compensate upon land acquisition is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring no individual is deprived of property without legal due process and fair compensation, embodied in Article 300A.
Constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article