https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282978 The Supreme Court reviewed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision on compensation for land acquired by HSIIDC for an Industrial Model Township. The High Court's differential compensation was deemed discriminatory without a clear rationale. The Supreme Court criticized the flat annual increase method and highlighted the importance of considering relevant evidence. Maruti Suzuki was permitted to intervene due to land allotment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing fresh disposal of appeals and payment of balance compensation to landowners within four months. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 16:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282978 The Supreme Court reviewed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision on compensation for land acquired by HSIIDC for an Industrial Model Township. The High Court's differential compensation was deemed discriminatory without a clear rationale. The Supreme Court criticized the flat annual increase method and highlighted the importance of considering relevant evidence. Maruti Suzuki was permitted to intervene due to land allotment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing fresh disposal of appeals and payment of balance compensation to landowners within four months. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282978