Case Law
Subject : Property Law - Land Acquisition and Compensation
Shimla,
The case originated from a writ petition filed by
The division bench comprehensively refuted the State's contentions. The court emphasized that the State failed to produce any evidence of written consent from
Furthermore, the court dismissed the State's argument that PMGSY guidelines absolve them of the responsibility to compensate landowners. Referencing another Full Bench judgment of the High Court in
State of
The High Court decisively rejected the State's plea of delay and laches. Drawing upon a series of Supreme Court judgments, including
Tukaram Kana Joshi and others versus Maharashtra Industrial development Corporation and others
,
The judgment quoted extensively from
Excerpts from the Judgment:
> "Even the whimsical and anarchical manner of depriving the landowner-writ petitioner of property and right of compensation shocks the conscience of this Court. Accordingly, the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge after noticing the material on record and the factual and the legal aspects herein, does not require any interference in instant appeal."
> "The State Authorities cannot by way of an executive fiat divest the writ petitioner-
A crucial aspect highlighted by the court was the discriminatory treatment meted out to
Dismissing the State's appeal, the High Court upheld the single judge's order, directing the State authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings and award compensation to
In a stern concluding note, the bench expressed its dismay at the State's repeated filing of appeals in similar cases despite settled legal principles, hinting at the imposition of exemplary costs in the future for such "sorry state of affairs" and urging the State to adhere to its litigation policy in "letter and spirit."
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting citizens' property rights against arbitrary state actions and ensures that landowners are not denied their rightful compensation even in infrastructure development projects under schemes like PMGSY.
#LandAcquisition #PropertyRights #CompensationLaw #HimachalPradeshHighCourt
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
CJI Declares Sikkim India's First Paperless Judiciary
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.