Section 26 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

This Supreme Court judgment interprets Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affirming the method for determining market value based on comparable sale instances. It clarifies that rental compensation for pre-acquisition occupation is not statutorily mandated, but equitable interest may be awarded under Section 28 for specific periods of dispossession. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns a long-standing dispute over a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) plot of land in Nashik, originally part of Survey No. 8/1. In 1972, the Nashik Municipal Corporation (then Council) resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of this portion without formal acquisition. A 1978 notification under land acqu...

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Stresses Need for Concrete Proof of Identity

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the perpetrators. The sole eyewitness could not identify them, and the testimonies of other witnesses were unreliable. Recovery of weapons was inadmissible as proof of their use in the crime under Sections 25-27 of the Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: On June 3, 2000, an altercation occurred between appellants Rajendra Singh, his son Bhupender Singh, and Diler Singh after the appellants began digging Diler Singh's field. Later that day, at around 1:30 PM, Diler Singh's son, Pushpendra Singh (the deceased), was sitting at Jogither diversion. The three appellants arrived on a motorcycle, armed with swords and a 'kanta'. Upon seeing them, the deceased fled towards northern fields...

Section 26 NGT Act Strictly Applied: Supreme Court Clarifies Penal Liability in Environmental Violations

The Supreme Court ruled that penalties under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 cannot be imposed without proving willful disobedience by the accused. It held that the Mayor, not being a party to the original proceedings and lacking executive authority over waste management, could not be penalized for violations. However, the Municipal Corporation's fine for environmental damage was upheld. The Court emphasized that strict construction of penal provisions is necessary and accepted the Mayor's unconditional apology for remarks against the NGT, setting aside his punishment while clarifying the limits of liability under environmental laws Facts Of The Case: Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University, and residents of Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly, filed applications with the Na...