In Brief
The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that successive notifications (1980, 1990, 1995) amounted to abandonment. They also contested rejection of their request for land release from a zone reserved for economically weaker sections. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that successive notifications do not constitute abandonment; that proper inquiry under Section 5A was conducted; and that land reserved for weaker sections cannot be released. The Court rejected the argument that illegally released land elsewhere justified similar releases to appellants, affirming that weaker sections' statutory entitlements must be protected over private claims."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.