In Brief
The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Single Judge allowed their writ petition quashing the acquisition orders, but the Division Bench reversed this, upholding the acquisition as legal. The Supreme Court remanded the case, finding that neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench had given reasoned decisions addressing the parties' arguments. The Court held that the Division Bench improperly used review jurisdiction to decide matters that should have been decided in the main appeal. The case was remanded to the Division Bench for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.">
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.