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

ARJUNA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
2 May 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 1105 · 1995 INSC 331

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.

The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the private respondent are within the ceiling limit and, therefore, allotment of the surplus land to the respondents is illegal. In ground No. 5 of the special leave petition it was specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared to be a surplus holder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants. By order dated March 22, 1995, we had directed both the parties to produce the return filed by the respondents. The appellants were directed to get the certified copy of the said return as well as the copy of the return filed by the respondents.

pp. 1105–1106, margin G

It is stated by Dr. N.N. Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the respondents, that through Mr. S.V. Deshpande, the learned instructing counsel, had written letters to the party he has not received any response. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stated that the.y could not procure the certified copy.

p. 1106, margin A

In that view of the matter, ground No.5 has remained undisputed. The appeal is, accordingly allowed on that terms and the order of the High Court is set aside. In case the respondents were declared to be within the ceiling limit, liberty is given to them to file a review petition within a period of two months from to day. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 1106, margin B