Latest news with #1956Act
The Hindu
5 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court protects daughters' right to live in father's house
The Bombay High Court has cancelled orders of the Satara trial court and the district appellate court that told three sisters to leave their late father's property. The High Court said their right to live in the house is protected under Hindu law. Justice Gauri Godse, deciding in favour of the sisters, said, 'Irrespective of whether Rama (father) died before or after 1956, the appellants, being daughters of Rama, had a right to his property. Before 1956, Rama or his heirs, who inherited his property, were bound to maintain the appellants, and on the death of Rama, they were entitled to be maintained out of his estate under a moral, though not a legal, obligation to maintain them. After the 1956 Act, Section 14 has improved their right of maintenance acquired before the 1956 Act, which has culminated in an absolute right. In view of Section 23 of the 1956 Act, the appellants had the right of residence in the dwelling house.' The land originally belonged to Natha, who had two sons — Rama and Chandar. In a family partition, the land went to Rama. Rama had three sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Laxman, was married to the woman who later took the matter to Court. She claimed that after another partition in 1966, this property went to her husband Laxman. She said Laxman had let his sisters stay in the house out of sympathy, but after his death, she ended this arrangement in 1986 and asked them to leave. The sisters said their father Rama had allowed them to live there for maintenance and that they had built the house with their own money. One sister, widowed in 1949, moved in while her father was alive. The other two, deserted by their husbands, joined her later — one of them in 1956 with her infant son. Two lower courts had agreed with the widow and ordered the sisters to leave, calling them 'gratuitous licensees' who had no permanent right to stay. Justice Godse found it 'unbelievable' that the widow's husband had given them permission to live there when one sister had already moved in before 1966, the year he got his share of the property. Quoting legal principles, the Judge observed, 'Pre-1956, unmarried daughters, widows or destitute daughters were entitled to be maintained by their father and reside in the father's property. Hence, in the present case, the right of the defendants to residence prior to 1956 would become an absolute right after the Act of 1956 came into force.' The Judge added, '...Under any contingency, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession from the appellants on the ground that they were gratuitous licensees and she terminated it.' The High Court said the sisters' right to live in the home 'needs to be protected' and cancelled the previous orders, dismissing the case to evict them.
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
HC upholds landowners' right to enhanced compensation, trashes NHAI's plea
In a major relief to landowners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) Tuesday dismissed two petitions filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), which had challenged the payment of enhanced compensation, including an increased easement amount, for land acquired in Amritsar for a national highway project. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya ruled that once the landowners' easement rights had been acknowledged and compensation awarded, NHAI could not reopen the issue or deny enhanced benefits based on revised land rates. An easement refers to the right to use a portion of someone's land for a specific purpose, such as access or utilities, even though one does not own it. The court upheld earlier orders passed by the Executing Court in Amritsar and directed it to proceed with the landowners' execution applications without delay. The case concerns land acquired in village Verka for the construction of National Highway-15, with acquisition notifications issued in 2008 and 2009 under the National Highways Act, 1956. The competent authority had initially fixed compensation at Rs 9,292 per square yard in 2010, along with a 10% easement amount for affected landowners. After a long legal battle that included arbitration, objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and a High Court appeal, compensation was finally enhanced to Rs 26,000 per square yard in 2017. However, the NHAI later objected to the recalculated easement amount, prompting further litigation. Rejecting NHAI's challenge, Justice Dahiya quoted Section 3G(2) of the 1956 Act. 'The land owner whose right to easement has been affected by the acquisition of land shall be paid easement amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount of compensation… No doubt taking away of easement right has to be proved, but that has already been done by the landowners… which has been accepted by the petitioner/NHAI. There is no challenge to it to date.' He further dismissed NHAI's argument that the HC's 2017 order enhanced only the base compensation and not the easement amount. 'This is a misconceived argument… Violation of easement rights has already been established, and need not be proved again for enhanced compensation.' NHAI also attempted to invoke the doctrine of merger, arguing that the original award merged with the High Court's 2017 ruling and could no longer be enforced. The judge rejected this, stating: 'The argument is fallacious… The award granting easement amount was never set aside… It has instead been accepted and implemented by NHAI and they cannot now take a contradictory stand.' The court also cited a SC ruling in Tarsem Singh to clarify that compensation for easement rights is separate and payable if the infringement has been proven. Landowners' counsel, advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, argued that since NHAI had never challenged the 2010 award granting the easement amount, it had attained finality. Agreeing with this, the court noted that NHAI's failure to raise timely objections meant they were now barred from doing so.
