High Court Bombay - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

19Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...

Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim

The Supreme Court held that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value for caste claims and that the affinity test is not a litmus test. It cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially given modernization and assimilation. The Court emphasized that such claims must be evaluated primarily on reliable documentary evidence. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought admission to a medical college based on a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Koli Mahadev. His claim was supported by historical documents, including the 1943 school record of his grandfather, which explicitly mentioned the caste as Koli Mahadev. Subsequent school records from 1975 and 1979 for his father and uncle, as well as his own school record...