Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Delhi Government v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition under the 2013 Act is deemed complete only if possession or compensation was given before its commencement, and successors have locus to challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and clarified the correct interpretation of possession and compensation requirements to prevent lapse.
Delhi Government v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is deemed valid if possession was not taken and compensation was not paid for five years prior to the Act's enforcement, barring fresh challenges to such acquisition.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, and a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse, setting aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
State of Rajasthan v. Dayanand & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition of vested land is deemed complete only if possession was taken or compensation was paid/deposited within five years prior to the Act's commencement, and non-payment or non-collection of compensation alone does not suffice for deemed acquisition.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dayanand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.
राज्य सरकार v. दयानंद
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition cannot be deemed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act unless both possession and payment of compensation have failed for five years before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dayanand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Pal
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation tendered before the Act's commencement, overruling the contrary High Court decision.
Rajasthan Government v. Jai Pal
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition proceedings do not lapse merely due to non-possession or non-payment of compensation alone, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Pal
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with its 2010 ruling limiting limited departmental competitive examination appointments to 10% from 2011 onwards and to adjust any excess appointments in future recruitments.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with its 2010 ruling limiting judicial appointments via limited departmental competitive examination to 10%, adjusting any excess appointments in future recruitments.
Rajasthan Government v. Kapoor & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act unless both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Siddharth Kapoor
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
राज्य दिल्ली सरकार v. संधाथ कपूर
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition does not lapse merely due to non-payment or non-possession alone, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Siddharth Kapoor
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's finding of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that acquisition lapses only if both possession and compensation are not completed for five years prior to the Act's commencement.
B. S. Sodhal v. Others
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings pending as of 1-1-2014 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation paid or due, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Land Acquisition Collector v. B.S. Dhillon
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
B. S. Sodhal v. Others
The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition completed under the 1894 Act before the 2013 Act's commencement is not deemed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal.