A Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that a 2018 notification appointing Divisional Commissioners as arbitrators under the National Highways Act operates prospectively and does not affect pending arbitrations, but set aside an award on Gaya land acquired for NH-82 and ordered compensation reassessed with solatium and interest under the 1894 Act.
The Karnataka High Court has allowed the Union’s writ appeal over 3 acres 12 guntas at Sonnappanahalli near the Air Force Station, Yelahanka, holding that the Military Land Register is conclusive proof of Defence title and that a private buyer through a court-executed sale deed acquired no better title, and has restored the revenue orders in favour of the Defence Department.
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order quashing the acquisition of land for a DRDO defence research facility, holding that a completed acquisition for a genuine public purpose cannot be annulled in its entirety for a procedural lapse. The Court held that private property rights, though real, must be harmonised with the State’s obligation to provide for national defence, and that compensation disputes are to be pursued through statutory remedies, not by quashing the acquisition.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not prevent the State from acquiring religious properties for secular public purposes. Dismissing a plea against Varanasi’s Dalmandi redevelopment, the Court upheld the government’s authority to undertake lawful public infrastructure projects.
The Special PMLA Court in Ranchi rejected Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s discharge plea in a money-laundering case linked to an allegedly illegally acquired land parcel. The Court found that the ED had placed sufficient evidence and key witness statements on record to justify proceeding with the case.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea by Asaram’s Ahmedabad ashram challenging the State’s move to reclaim land for sports infrastructure ahead of the Commonwealth Games 2030. The court upheld the government’s stand that the ashram had exceeded the permitted land use and violated allotment conditions.
