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 proposed ring road being built by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) connects the two national highways linking Pune with Bengaluru and Belagavi with Goa, for which the government plans to acquire 160 acres for the road. Farmers have been opposing land acquisition since the road was planned 13 years ago, and demanding realignment of the ring road saying that they will be losing fertile farmland, which is their source of livelihood. Farmers groups petition for cancelling or modifying the land acquisition have lost their appeal in the High Court and Supreme Court. Revenue officials told the Minister that the process of land acquisition began in 2011, second and third rounds were initiated in 2019 and 2021. The compensation amount has been increased to a total of ₹45 crore, up from the initial ₹15 crore. Compensation for 77 acres has been paid to farmers and that for 55 acres has been deposited in court. The farmers, however, are seeking even higher amounts of compensation. Responding to these demands, the Minister has assured them of leading a delegation to the Centre.

Traffic on Sultanpur Road was disrupted for over two and a half hours as hundreds of farmers from BKU started marching towards the chief minister’s residence on Thursday over lack of response from local authorities regarding land acquisition in Sultanpur and Mohanlalganj areas. During the protest, they aired their grievances regarding land acquisition, insisting on compensation at current market rates rather than the “outdated DM circle rates” and demanded reopening of land registries. This march came after a 43-day sit-in at Khurdahi Bazar. Lucknow Development Authority joint secretary has assured of a meeting between LDA V-C and farmers.

The proposed move of the state government to take over estate land for rehabilitation of the landslide survivors of Mundakkai-Chooralmala villages has run into legal tangles. After the government moved to acquire land under the Disaster Management Act, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd approached the High Court to challenge the acquisition. According to the state government, the entire land of HML is government land. There are various reports submitted by government departments substantiating the claims of the government over the land. State government has approached the court with its claims over as many as 297.77 hectares of the entire Arapatta estate of HML.

The Noida Authority is set to acquire land for New Noida days after the state government cleared the master plans for the new city. Conceptualised as DNGIR (Dadri Noida Ghaziabad Investment Region) will be built across villages of GB Nagar and Bulandshahr and will be identical to the size of Noida. Noida's saturation led to the state govt drawing up an expansion plan to accommodate investments that have been flowing into NCR. DNGIR area has been identified as one of the new investment regions in the first phase of the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC), which will be implemented in phases with the development of supporting infrastructure. DNGIR is also a part of Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.

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).

Apart from the law and order situation, the land acquisition problems in Punjab are the major reason for the stalling of the National Highway projects, especially the Delhi-Katra Expressway projects

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 Kundannoor-Angamaly National Highway Bypass Action Council has called for clarity on land acquisition and related aspects for the 44-km NH 544 Bypass. The council has demanded that the acquisition of 290 hectares be done under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It also insisted that the provisions offering better compensation be extended to traders, including those operating from rented buildings.

The demand follows concerns that land might be acquired under the NH Act of 1956, despite directions from the Supreme Court to use the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act of 2013 for land acquisition and rehabilitation

In an appeal filed against the Judgement passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, reversing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the division bench C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgement, said that in cases of adverse possession, the period of limitation for proving title starts from the date the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the true owner rather than from the date the plaintiff acquires ownership. This means that the statutory clock starts ticking once the possession is open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile to the interests of the original owner.

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.