The court observes that the sale of smaller pieces of land can be taken as an example for determining compensation in case of land acquisition. The Court referred to the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (2012) to reason that since the person whose land is acquired is entitled to receive the highest value of compensation based on the value fetched by the similar pieces of land adjacent to the acquired land, therefore, there would not be a legal impediment to take into consideration the sale value of the smaller pieces of land. Reference was drawn to the case of Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P. (2013) where the court opined that when there exist multiple sale deeds then the courts should rely on the highest valued exemplars.

The Supreme Court criticised the State of Himachal Pradesh for failing to ensure the timely payment of additional compensation of Rs. 3,05,31,095 awarded to landowners for land acquired in 2008 for a cement project run by JAL(M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited).

The Supreme Court took a significant step to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover for a “public purpose”, holding that compulsory acquisition without following mandatory procedures followed by a grant of compensation to the owners will not make the accession constitutional. The judgement noted that though the 44th Constitutional Amendment omitted the right to property as a fundamental right, Article 300A, which was simultaneously inserted into the Constitution, provided that “no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law”.

A person’s rights, even the history of liberty, have been safeguarded through the prescription and observance of mandatory procedures and processes of law. Procedure is an integral part of the ‘authority of law’ in Article 300A. The phrase ‘authority of law’ in the Article should not be understood as merely the power of eminent domain vested in the state. The requirement of a ‘law’ in Article 300A does not end with the mere presence of a legislation which empowers the state to deprive a person of his property, Justice Narasimha clarified.

The Supreme Court, while deciding a civil appeal, has (on May 13) expressed its disappointment at the Patna High Court's approach, inter alia, for not questioning the State as to why it did not pay compensation to the appellant for forty-two years after acquiring his land.

The land acquisition process for national highway (NH) construction and to reduce unnecessary expenses, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has proposed a series of amendments to the National Highways Act, 1956. One of the key amendments is the introduction of a new clause in Section 3D, which deals with the declaration of land acquisition by the central government. Under this proposed clause, land that has been acquired but remains unused for five years or where a highway project becomes unfeasible within the same time frame will be eligible to be returned to the original owner or their legal heirs. This move is expected to not only prevent the accumulation of surplus land but also save government resources by returning unused land back to its rightful owners, who will be compensated for any damage cause

The Mizoram state legislative assembly has unanimously approved the adoption of ‘Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement,Act 2013.’ The decision follows Gauhati High Court’s ruling that rendered the state’s own acquisition law enacted in 2016, inapplicable. With several pending land acquisition cases the state needed a valid legal framework. Due to special constitutional provisions under Article 371G, central laws related to land ownership and transfer require formal resolution from the state for implementation in Mizoram.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment on land acquisition, ruling that no landowner can be evicted from their property if compensation is delayed. This decision has been widely hailed as a historic win for landowners, reinforcing the importance of property rights and fair compensation in India.

The Madras High Court has set aside a notice issued by Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to acquire property belonging to United India Insurance for the construction of a metro station under Phase-II of the project. The court ruled that CMRL could proceed with its original plan of acquiring land from a nearby temple instead. Justice Anand Venkatesh, borrowing from a Kerala High Court judgment, remarked that the Almighty would show kindness and benevolence toward the development of the metro station, benefiting lakhs of people

The Telangana High Court has suspended part of a Notification, issued to acquire land for setting up a Multiple purpose Industrial Park in Vikharabad District after certain land owners moved the court contending that the study for Determination of Social Impact and Public Purpose under the Land Acquisition Act could not be dispensed with.

The Bombay High Court has cancelled the land acquisition process for the Navi Mumbai international airport project, citing procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions.

The ambitious Ahilya Path project, covering approximately 3,000 acres of land, is awaiting final approval from the state government. Three months ago, the Indore Development Authority (IDA) proposed five major land development projects under this initiative, but the approval process was stalled, with no updates from Bhopal on clearance or modifications. With just two to three months left before the official deadline, there is mounting concern growing over the delay. These five projects, once approved, will pave the way for a 15 kilometre long and 75 metre wide Ahilya Path.

Civil Judge Senior Division Kishtwar, Mahmud Anwar Alnasir has restrained Commissioner Secretary, J&K PW(R&B) Department and six other defendants, including DC Kishtwar and ADC Collector Land Acquisition Kishtwar, through a temporary injunction, from going ahead with any kind of construction or activity in a suit property in Moza Loundri of tehsil Drabshalla, without following due process of law. The Civil Judge has ordered the defendants to follow due process of law as envisaged in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.