In Brief
In this land acquisition dispute involving submerged land from a water project, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had failed to make clear findings on whether the disputed area actually came under submergence and when such submergence occurred. Certain documentary evidence indicated the appellant had cultivating possession of the land. The Court remanded the case to the Collector to examine and determine: whether submergence occurred, the period of submergence, damages sustained, and entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The determination was to be made within six months after hearing the parties and examining evidence."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.