TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Seeks Uniform Interpretation of Land Acquisition Act; High Courts Advised to Pause Related Cases.</h1> <h3>STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Versus M/s G.D. GOENKA TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. </h3> STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Versus M/s G.D. GOENKA TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. - TMI Issues:Challenge to judgment by State of Haryana | Interpretation of Section 24 of Land Acquisition ActAnalysis:The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State of Haryana challenging a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana regarding the acquisition of land. The State of Haryana argued that the matter was covered by a recent decision of a Bench of 3 learned Judges in a different case. Some senior counsels present in court requested to be heard as they were engaged in similar matters affected by the recent decision. The Court acceded to their request and heard the senior counsels along with the State of Haryana.During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the decision in the previous case had unsettled a long-standing statement of law with serious repercussions on land acquisition cases. It was also mentioned that when a Bench of 3 learned Judges disagrees with another Bench's decision, the appropriate action would be to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The Court was informed that some cases had been decided based on the previous judgment without reference to a larger Bench. As a result, the Court decided to list the matter for further hearing on a later date.Considering the potential impact on pending cases, the Court requested High Courts not to deal with cases related to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act until a final decision was made on whether to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The Court also directed the concerned Benches in similar matters to defer hearings until a decision was reached on the referral issue. This decision aimed to prevent inconvenience to the litigating parties and ensure a consistent approach in handling such cases. The Court also condoned delays in certain Special Leave Petitions and issued notices returnable on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
