In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld that a company allotted land after its acquisition by KIADB under the KIAD Act is neither a beneficiary nor a 'person interested' in compensation proceedings. The Court held acquisitions under the KIAD Act are distinct from those under the Land Acquisition Act: the beneficiary is KIADB, not subsequent allottees. The Court distinguished earlier decisions on direct acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act and restored the Reference Court's judgment awarding enhanced compensation to original landowners, ruling that MRPL could not participate in determining compensation despite its contractual obligation to reimburse additional amounts."}
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.