Don't rely on revenue records alone while fixing compensation for acquired land, rules Kerala high court
Kochi: Kerala high court has held that, while determining compensation for acquired land, the authorities need not be solely guided by entries in revenue records.
Justice Viju Abraham delivered the ruling while disposing of a plea by Mano Alex of Kottayam, who sought compensation for her land acquired by the
National Highways Authority of India
(NHAI). She contended that the land should be treated as 'purayidam' and not as paddy land, as recorded in the revenue entries. The petitioner submitted that the land had been converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and that she had filed an application in 2010 for its removal from the data bank. Although HC had, in 2024, directed the revenue officials to consider her application, no action was taken.
NHAI argued that the petitioner could pursue her claim before the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956. Upon examining the records, HC held that the authority must determine compensation by considering various parameters, not just the revenue records. These include title documents, the physical nature and use of the land prior to acquisition, the nature of the locality, infrastructural development in the area, proximity to roads, ease of access and the fair value notification, juxtaposed with the revenue entries. The court emphasised that the authority is statutorily obligated to conduct a comprehensive inquiry on these aspects.
The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all her contentions before the competent authority during the inquiry process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
38 minutes ago
- First Post
How Allahabad High Court's verdict against Indira Gandhi 50 years ago resulted in Emergency
On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency. Here's how it all happened read more It has been 50 years since a High Court's judgement against India's prime minister changed the country's trajectory. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency a few days later. The verdict caused a political storm and had ramifications for the entire country. But why was Indira Gandhi's election set aside? We take a relook. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Petition against Indira Gandhi In the 1971 Lok Sabha polls, Indira Gandhi, who had floated the Congress (R) — the breakaway faction of the Congress — after being expelled from the parent party in 1969, defeated her opponent Raj Narain by 1,10,000 votes from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Her party also registered a landslide victory in the elections, winning 352 out of the 518 Lok Sabha seats. Raj Narain, the Samyukta Socialist Party candidate, however, challenged Gandhi's election from Rae Bareli on April 24, 1971. He approached the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices and misuse of government machinery by the then Prime Minister. Giving no weightage to the petition, people did not anticipate what would come next. The petition was first listed before Justice William Broome, the last British judge of the Allahabad High Court. However, he retired in December 1971 and the petition reached two different benches — one of Justice BN Lokur and of Justice KN Srivastava. Due to their retirements, the petition went before the bench of Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha in early 1975. The verdict that changed India The recording of oral evidence began on February 12, 1975. Several big names appeared as witnesses — PN Haksar, then vice chairman of the Planning Commission, appeared for Gandhi. While LK Advani, the then president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, former Bihar Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur and Congress-O president S Nijalingappa deposed for Raj Narain. The Prime Minister was also cross-examined for two straight days — a first in the history of independent India. As Gandhi appeared before the court on March 18, 1975, she was given a chair on an elevated platform so she was sitting on the same level as the judge, as per the Indian Express report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then-PM Indira Gandhi was cross-examined for two days at the Allahabad High Court. After the arguments concluded, the High Court shut down for summer vacations on May 23, 1975. Now, it was time to wait for Justice Sinha's verdict. Under immense pressure, he is said to have locked himself up at home, with visitors being told that he is in Ujjain to see his elder brother. Justice Vipin Sinha, Justice Sinha's son, recalled the pressure on his family at the time. 'I was in Class 11 then and those days were very hard for us. We got a lot of very abusive calls, so much so that we did not allow our father to answer the phone,' he was quoted as saying by Indian Express. Then came the judgement day. Announcing his ruling on June 12, 1975, in Courtroom No 24 of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sinha said, 'This petition is allowed and the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha is declared void… (Indira Gandhi) accordingly stands disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Justice Sinha found Gandhi guilty on two counts — for using a gazetted officer, her personal secretary Yashpal Kapoor, as her election agent, and for employing Uttar Pradesh government officers to arrange rostrums, loudspeakers and barricades for her election speeches. The court ruled in her favour on other charges –– for using choppers of the Indian Air Force to go to Rae Bareli for her election campaigning and file nominations, invoking religion to influence electors and distributing quilts, blankets, dhotis and liquor to get votes, and so on. Justice Sinha's final 258-page ruling meant immediate disqualification for Indira Gandhi as an MP and her dismissal as Prime Minister. However, after her lawyers argued that her removal would create a political vacuum in the country, the court granted a 20-day stay on the verdict. Meanwhile, Gandhi moved the Supreme Court on appeal. The case was heard by a single-judge vacation bench of Justice VR Krishna Iyer. On June 24, 1975, the apex court granted a 'conditional stay' against the Allahabad High Court ruling. While Indira Gandhi could continue as PM, her rights as an MP were restricted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She could not vote in Parliament, take part in proceedings of the House, or get a salary as an MP until the SC finally decides the appeal. Indira Gandhi imposes Emergency Days after the HC's ruling, Indira Gandhi invoked Article 352 of the Constitution to impose an internal Emergency . This period lasted for 21 months, during which people's fundamental rights were suppressed and dissent curbed across the country. The media were gagged and opposition leaders jailed. Seen as the Constitution's darkest chapter, the Emergency was a real test for the Indian democracy. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC stays govt mandate for quota in minority institutions for Class 11 admissions
The Bombay High Court has temporarily suspended the Maharashtra government's order mandating minority educational institutions to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes for junior college admissions. Justices Karnik and Borkar issued the stay following petitions challenging the May 6 resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Maharashtra government 's mandate to minority educational institutes to reserve seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes for first-year junior college admissions.A bench of Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar passed the order on a bunch of petitions filed by some minority institutions , challenging the May 6 resolution issued by the government's school education and sports department applying the constitutional/social reservations in minority education high court said it found substance in the petitioners' arguments and hence the mandate of social reservation will not be applicable for Class 11 admissions in minority educational HC bench said it was granting a stay on the clause of the resolution that included minority educational institutes for the directed the government to file its affidavit in reply to the petitions and posted the matter for further hearing on August high court on Wednesday questioned the government's rationale behind the resolution and asked if it was willing to withdraw the same or issue a corrigendum clarifying that minority institutes would not be included in the Thursday, government pleader Neha Bhide told the court that she has no instructions from the government to withdraw the resolution or issue a per the pleas, Article 15(5) of the Constitution excludes minority educational institutes, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward petitions claimed that under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the institution.A similar GR (government resolution) was issued in 2019 but it was withdrawn after petitions were filed then, they said.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka High Court orders release of RCB's Nikhil Sosale and others
In a major set back to the police and the State government, the High Court of Karnataka on June 12 ordered the release of four representatives of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL) and DNA Networks Pvt. Ltd., who were arrested on the wee hours of June 6 in connection with the June 4 stampede outside M. Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru during the celebration of RCB's victory in IPL-2025 tournment. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar passed the order while allowing the petitions filed by Nikhil Sosale, Head (Marketing and Revenue), RCSPL; Sunil Mathew, Director, and Kiran Kumar, Event Manager of DNA; and Shamant N.P. Mavinakere, a freelancer service provider for DNA. RCSPL is the owner of RCB cricket team and DNA is the event management firm for RCSPL. The Court has ordered their release on bail by imposing conditions. Copy of the order is yet to be released. 'Arrested on CM's orders' It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they were arrested based solely on 'the orders of the Chief Minister [Siddaramaiah] to arrest the officials of RCB and others' and without conducting any investigation and collecting any material to point out that the petitioners were responsible for the stampede, which resulted in the death of 11 persons. They had also contended that they were arrested by the police, who had no jurisdiction either to investigate the cases registered in connection with the stampede or to arrest them. Meanwhile, the State government had defended their arrest claiming that the police adhered to all the procedures laid down in law and by the apex court while arresting the accused persons in a criminal case. However, the Government, either in its written statement or arguments, did not say anything on the court's query whether Chief Minister had stated at a media conference that he had ordered the arrest of officials of the RCB and others. The government, in its written statement, had merely stated that the contention of the petitioners, that their arrest was made solely on the Chief Minister's order, was not relevant for deciding the legality of their arrest.
