Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Land Laws

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Section 3 - What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines - The ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression “mine” under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). (Para 13) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2022 SC 1646 : (2022) 6 SCC 99

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Sections 2(h) and 3(1) - Focus is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is - Even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff were also included in the definition of the word “mine”. (Para 15) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2022 SC 1646 : (2022) 6 SCC 99

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - High Court dismissed an application for additional evidence filed by the appellant to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of the judgments and awards passed in other land acquisition cases, which he contended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value -Allowed - It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - There was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 : AIR 2022 SC 1372 : (2022) 7 SCC 247

Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu); Section 15(2) - Highways Rules, 2003 (Tamil Nadu); Rule 5(2) - Highways Department may or may not file a statement by way of answer to the objections by land owners - Not a mandatory requirement - Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non­furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process. (Para 5.1) M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : AIR 2022 SC 4085

Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu); Section 15(2) - Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003; Rule 5 - Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act. (Para 7) M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : AIR 2022 SC 4085

Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Uttar Pradesh) - If subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder. (Para 31-32) Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2022 SC 436 : (2022) 3 SCC 21

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 28(1), 41 - Power to acquire land beyond development by KIADB - Regulations framed by the Board under Section 41 also contemplates acquiring land for the purpose of allotment to a single company to set up an industry. (Para 37-39) M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 29(4) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18(1) - Person Interested - A subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable. (Para 7.3-7.4) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : (2022) 10 SCC 461

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Sections 1, 3, 28 - Appeal against judgment of Karnataka High Court quashing the notifications for acquisition of land - Allowed - Division Bench committed an error in quashing the acquisition proceedings. M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Land Acquisition - Appeal against Himachal Pradesh HC judgment which disposed a writ petition challenging dispossession and seeking compensation - Allowed - In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law - State directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : (2022) 7 SCC 508

Land Acquisition - Need for written consent in matters of land acquisition proceedings - contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : (2022) 7 SCC 508

Land Acquisition - When the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities. (Para 14) Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record - In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. (Para 5) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : (2022) 7 SCC 256

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeal against Karnataka HC judgment that enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of a Consent award - Allowed - The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition - The High Court has not at all considered whether the lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of the said Consent award. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : (2022) 7 SCC 256

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Awarding of fair compensation to the landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - The claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market value of his land. (Para 3.1) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 : AIR 2022 SC 1372 : (2022) 7 SCC 247

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. Gayabai Digambar Puri v. Executive Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquired in 1981 but compensation not yet paid - Authorities directed payment of compensation within two months - The value of the said land cannot be computed at the rate less than Rs. 250/­ per sq. yard which is supported by the evidence brought on record by the land owners. Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Market Value - It is not the nature of land which alone is determinative of the market value of the land. The market value must be determined keeping in view the various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc. (Para 11) Madhukar Govindrao Kamble v. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp.,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 112 : 2022 (2) SCALE 551

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - The six items covered by Section 23(1), which are to be taken into consideration by the court in determining compensation, can be summarized as follows: - (i) The market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) The damage to standing crops or trees, which are on the land at the time of the Collector taking possession; (iii) The damage sustained by reason of severing such land from the unacquired land; (iv) The damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or the earnings, of the person interested; (v) The reasonable expenses incurred by the person interested, in changing his residence or place of business, when he is compelled to do so in consequence of the acquisition; (vi) The damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession. (Para 31) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159 : (2022) 5 SCC 71

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - What is injuriously affected at the time of Collector’s taking possession of the land, may either be the unacquired portion of the immovable property or other movable property or even the earnings of the person interested. (Para 34) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159 : (2022) 5 SCC 71

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - An Award passed under Section 20 of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A. (Para 49) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2022 SC 847 : (2022) 9 SCC 516

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The award which is passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said to be an award passed under Part III. It is the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat which culminates in the award by the Lok Adalat. In fact, an award under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and therefore, adjudication is contemplated. (Para 44) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2022 SC 847 : (2022) 9 SCC 516

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The word ‘Court’ has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act. The Court is not the same as a Lok Adalat. (Para 45) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2022 SC 847 : (2022) 9 SCC 516

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 49 - Distinction between the scope of sub -section (1) and the scope of sub -section (2) of Section 49 discussed. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159 : (2022) 5 SCC 71

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. S. Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 934 : AIR 2022 SC 5702

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered - There cannot be a uniform market value of the land for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 9-12) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603 : AIR 2022 SC 3458

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - There may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior of the village and which might not have a good potential for development. (Para 6) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316 : (2022) 7 SCC 256

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11A, 17(3A) - The provision contained in Section 11A shall be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not complied with the requirement of Section 17 (3A) by tendering and paying eighty per centum of the estimated compensation before taking possession since possession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken in accordance with law and the vesting is not absolute - If the requirement is complied and possession is taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A will not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case is to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation - The decision in this case if it arises for consideration in any other case under Act, 1894 or any other enactment relating to land acquisition containing pari materia provisions shall be applied only prospectively and cases which have attained finality shall not be reopened. (Para 25-26) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 17 - (1) payment of 80% (2) taking over possession thereafter and (3) vesting of land in the government take place in a sequence. Absent anyone of these in the sequence, the emergency provision fails - It cannot be understood as providing any discretion to the acquiring authority. (Para 12) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 23(1) - Injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings. (Para 78) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159 : (2022) 5 SCC 71

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 11A and 6 - If the award is not made within the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, the entire proceedings will stand lapsed. The only option for the acquiring authority if the land is still required for the public purpose is to notify afresh from the stage of issuing notification under Section 4. The computation of two years would however exclude the period if the process was stayed by an order of the Court. (Para 11) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Law - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Since LA Act has been incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable, the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act. (Para 23) Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76 : AIR 2022 SC 598

Land Law - Supreme Court holds that persons in four villages which were acquired for Mahanadi coalfields in 1988 are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Directions issued for providing employment and resettlement packages in addition to land compensation. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723

Land Laws - Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)) - The land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State. (Para 196) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi); Section 50(a) - Constitutional Validity upheld - The Act is special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only - The Contention re: Gender bias/ women empowerment rejected - There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783 : AIR 2022 SC 4632

Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka) - Beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands - In construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory - Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. (Para 23, 28) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : AIR 2022 SC 1609

Land Revenue Code (Maharashtra) - Maharashtra Government cannot insist on NOC from it for registering the subsequent transfer of flats built on a land leased to a developer - State government is not entitled to a premium when the land is not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who in turn formed a Co-operative Society-1999 and 1983 Resolutions are applicable to the co-operative societies to whom the government lands are sanctioned on concessional rates-Since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Co-operative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society. (Paras 13, 14 & 15) State of Maharashtra v. Aspi Chinoy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 825

Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.); Sections 250, 257 - Appeal against High Court which allowed application filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred in view of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Allowed - High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Revenue Authority / Tehsildar where he was non­suited on the ground that Revenue Authority / Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property - Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : AIR 2022 SC 1560 : (2022) 6 SCC 585

National Highways Act, 1956; Section 3G(5) - While examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion. (Para 24) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584 : 2022 (9) SCALE 823

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition - The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State - The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. (Para 7, 8) Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : (2022) 7 SCC 252

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court which gave planning Authority one year further time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors (2019) 14 SCC 411 - Allowed - The direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : (2022) 7 SCC 252

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 13(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 48 - Once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, the landowners cannot revert back on the plea raised that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since repealed. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition. (Para 9) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2022) 7 SCC 796

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Two conditions to be established for acquisition proceedings to lapse - possession not taken and/or compensation not paid - Purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings - Since the original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the purchaser cannot seek the relief which was not available even to the original land owner. [Para 29, 43, 37] Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : AIR 2022 SC 2282 : (2022) 8 SCC 771

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11 - In a case where on the date of commencement of RFCTLARR Act, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of 2013 Act and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the 1894 Act - The landowners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them on determination of the compensation under the Act, 2013. (Para 16-17) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : AIR 2022 SC 2558

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Observations made in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 summarized - These observations would be aptly applicable while interpreting and considering Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. (Para 12-14) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : AIR 2022 SC 2558

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 4(1) - Meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act - Issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette of the appropriate Government - When Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act - Only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied. (Para 27, 34) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Jammu and Kashmir - State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - The provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. (Para 5.2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. (Para 7) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913 : AIR 2022 SC 5489

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - There cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations. (Para 7.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913 : AIR 2022 SC 5489

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have for the first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation. These rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for construction of houses, cash assistance for construction; transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided, such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads and other basic necessities, have been obligated. All these are in furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations cast upon the State. (Para 43) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 108 - Wherever there are existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions of the R&R Act. (Para 42) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723

Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (Karnataka); Section 20 - Constitutional Validity - Karnataka High Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional, in appeal, the Supreme Court held: High Court has dealt with the question of validity of Section 20 in a casual manner. That cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the Constitutional Court for answering the assail on this count, in the first place, need to examine the scheme of the 1973 Act, its objects and purposes as also the question: whether the payment of amount specified as three hundred times the property tax payable in respect of such land on the date of publication would be a permissible method of determination of the amount or is per se unjust, unfair or unreasonable - Impugned judgment set aside and remanded. State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Tenancy - In a revision / appeal preferred by the tenant, who has suffered an eviction decree, the appellate / revisional court while staying the eviction decree can direct the tenant to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises upon the contractual rate of rent and such compensation for use and occupation of the premises would be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936 : AIR 2022 SC 5756

Tenancy & Rent Control Law - Mesne Profits - After passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises - Once a decree for possession has been passed and the execution is delayed depriving the decree holder to reap the fruits, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixing reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person who is holding over the property -Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. M/s. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd v. Rajendra Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : AIR 2022 SC 3287 : (2022) 8 SCC 527

Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan); Section 42 - A Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab as an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person. Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10 : AIR 2022 SC 322 : (2022) 4 SCC 259

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Punjab) (amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 ) - Constitutional validity upheld - Land for common purposes can be classified in three categories - Part of agrarian reforms and is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - Only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat - The Amending Act having been enacted after the assent of the President, is protected in terms of Article 31A of the Constitution - The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361 : AIR 2022 SC 1718

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Punjab); Section 13(b) - Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab); Section 45 - Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall be applicable only in a case where the plaintiff wants to protect his possession on the basis of his name in the mutation record and/or revenue record. However, any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only. Ishwar v. Gram Panchayat Parli Khurd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Voluntary Surrender - If the Panchayat / Municipality is taking a stand that a land was voluntarily surrendered, the burden would be on the Panchayat / Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. (Para 12-13) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410 : AIR 2022 SC 2073