Digi - Legal Insights

Rejecting reserve H1 bids solely because bidders previously surrendered same mining contracts at higher rates is arbitrary.

A gift deed executed by a donor conveying ancestral land after surrendering his share in a compromise decree is void.

Respondent nos. 2 to 4 directed to acquire land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01 belonging to petitioner by passing an award under Act and paying compensation to petitioner within three months.

Petitioner wrongfully withdrew compensation without disclosing tenants rights hence, order requiring petitioner to refund amount did not modify original Award and found no grounds to interfere with order in its Writ jurisdiction.

High Court is urged to prioritize these appeals, ideally resolving them within six months; if not, respondents may seek additional funds as deemed appropriate and Registry is instructed to share this order with Chief Justice for necessary administrative actions.

Extension of a stay for two months and requires company to deposit Rs.15 crore as part of compensation, maintaining that failure to do so would revoke stay and allow landowners to pursue their claims.

A Will cannot be proved under Section 69 of the Evidence Act without first establishing satisfactory proof of the death or unavailability of the attesting witnesses as required by Section 68.

Redevelopment by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 obtained all necessary permissions without any evidence of false documentation hence, petition dismissed due to absence of merit, emphasizing need for transparency from State Authorities in their decision-making process.

A registered sale deed contravening Section 154 of the pre-1981 Abolition Act is merely voidable, not void, and carries a strong presumption of validity.

A writ court cannot entertain a second writ petition on same relief.

Reference Court determined compensation for acquired irrigated land at Rs.2,24,400 per acre hence, claimant cannot be denied this compensation simply because their claim was limited to Rs.2,00,000 per acre.

Tribunal failed to consider Petitioners' legal interests and prejudice they faced, leading to conclusion that orders cannot stand without proper evaluation of raised issues.

Mere long uninterrupted occupation, without proof of completed dedication or hostile animus, are insufficient to establish title by adverse possession.

Compensation could be further enhanced based on subsequent court rulings, but successive orders in First Appeal do not create new causes of action under Section 28A.

Acquisition occurred under Section 19-B(2) of Highways Act, with monetary compensation accepted by petitioners hence, no substance in writ petitions and reliefs claimed in these petitions cannot be granted.

Claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation for 172 orange trees and 50 orange trees that are 3-4 years old.

Reference Court determined market price of Rs.26,814 per square meter based on sale instances from 2014 to 2016, applying a 10% increase post notification on 09.01.2017 hence, no interfere with this price.

Directions to consider time extension charges as CIRP costs set aside and modify impugned order to that extent and NOIDAs appeal praying for time extension charges even beyond three years upto 10th year also stands rejected.

Joint Directors invocation of revisionary power, beyond three-year limit without an appeal, was deemed improper and ungrounded in statute hence, Judges decision to interfere with notice and allow writ petitions was justified, as Division Benchs contrary ruling was erroneous.

compensation, confirmed by parties, is deemed just and cannot be altered, particularly since petitions were filed years after agreements were executed.