Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GULINGAPPA AND ORS versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GULBARG

Decided
28 January 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 652 · 1997 INSC 72
Also cited as
  • (1997) 3 SCC 627 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 652, margin E

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,000 per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,300 per acre for dry lands and Rs. 9,820 per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this spl'cial leave petition.

p. 652, margin F

It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000 per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,000 per acre for the dry lands· and confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos. 1160 and 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the armchair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prud;:nt vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out .in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs. 6,320 per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court.

pp. 652–653, margin G

Under These circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the determination cf the compensation warranting interference.

p. 653, margin C

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 653, margin D