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

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. versus P.M. MALLAPPA AND ORS.

Decided
14 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 1131 · 1997 INSC 271
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

Notice on other respondents has been served. They are not appearing either in person· or through counsel. Delay condoned. S.R. Bhatt appears for one respondent in one appeal.

p. 1131, margin G

Leave granted.

p. 1131, margin H

These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment of the Division Bench. of the Karnataka High Court, dated December 22, 1995 made in M.F.A. Nos. 2688/88 and batch.

p. 1132, margin A

Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act') acquiring a large extent of land was published on March 25, 1971 .. The Land Acquisition Officer in its award granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre for the dry larids with which we are now concerned. We are riot co,ncerned with other lands because there is no appeal in that behalf. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,000 per acre. The High Court remitted the matter to the reference Court for reconsideration. Thereafter, the reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 38,000. On appeal, the High Court by the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12 per sq. yd. which amounts to Rs. 58,000 per acre. It is seen that since the respondents have not filed any appeal under Section 26 of the Act against the award granting enhanced compensation of Rs. 38,000 per acre, we do not propose to go into the enhancement granted by the reference Court.

p. 1132, margin A

The only question is : whether the High Court would be justified in · enhancing the compensation to Rs. 12 per sq. yd., in other words, Rs. 58,000 per acre. Admittedly, the land is dry land and the Land Acquisition Officer had pointed out in his award that the converted lands for which he had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000 and Rs.10,000 per acre, bear different connotation to the actual dry land existing as on that date. The potential value shall be determined for the land existing as on the date of the notification and not after subsequent developments have taken place.· The value of the developed land bears no relevance to further enhancement of the value. Under these circumstances, the High Court has wholly incorrect in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 12 per sq. yd., i.e., Rs. 58,000 per acre.

p. 1132, margin D

The appeals 'are accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court stand set aside and that of the reference Court stands confirmed. No costs. R.P .. Appeals allowed.

p. 1132, margin G