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

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Decided
9 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 400 · 1996 INSC 218
Also cited as
  • (1996) 3 SCC 117 (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

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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 writ petition is filed against the order passed by this Court under Article 136 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court and arbitrator awarding enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 in respect of lands acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. A three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the award passed under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Consequently, the direction and order for the payment of interest and solatium was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be nullity. The question then is whether writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would lie ? Dealing with the same question in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India & Ors. Etc., [1984) 3 SCR 482 this Court had observed thus :

pp. 400–401, margin E

"In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to · approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file

p. 401, margin A

any other application which he may be entitled in law to file".

p. 401, margin B

Following the above ratio, in Klwday Distille1ies Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Cowt of India, W.P. (C) No. 803 of (1995) decided on December 5, 1995, a three-Judge Bench (to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member) has held that after the decision of this Court in Mis. Kltoday Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Kamataka & Ors., [1995) 1 SCC 574 writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution canvassing the correctness of the decision of this Court, is not maintainable.

p. 401, margin B

Thus the judgement and order of this Court passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.

p. 401, margin D

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 401, margin D