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

A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAJDU versus SUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM

Decided
14 August 1992
Judges listed
T.K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI, S.P. BHARUCHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1992] 3 S.C.R. 890 · 1992 INSC 204

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.

Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition· Officer awarded compensation at the rate of one rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference under section 18 of the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment reduced the compensation to Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft.

p. 891, margin A

The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the rate of compensation was that the acquired area was a compact plot of 10 acres which was laid out as building sites with fully formed roads and drainage~ The High Court held that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of the area acquired, proportionate deduction incompensation ought to be made.

p. 891, margin B

Counsel for the appellant submits that what was acquired was a compact':~ea of 10 acres. The fact that roads and drainage had been laid out does not reduce the value of the land acquired. In fact the appellaqt had incurred expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and th,e High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was entitled ~o higher compensation.

p. 891, margin D

We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court on the ground that roaCl.s and drainage had been laid out. The fact that these improvements had been made on the land shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the improvements. The reason given by the l:ligh Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Reference Court. '

p. 891, margin E

The appeal is, allowed is the above terms. No Costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 891, margin G