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

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHRI RISAL SINGH

Decided
29 April 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
Leave Granted & Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 1105 · 1997 INSC 448

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. Leave granted.

p. 1105, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of Delhi High Court, made on October 30, 1991 in RFA No. 203/91.

p. 1105, margin G

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, the 'Act') was published on 27.7.1984 for acquiring the lands for development of the Delhi city. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 14,000 per Bigha. On reference, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 25,000 per Bigha. On appea~ by a common judgment, the High Court had disposed of as many as 161 appeals. We are informed that against one of the judgment from that batch, Appeal No. 871/95 was filed and this Court has dismissed the SLP on the ground of delay as well as on merits. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellants to give the number of cases, though the case was adjourned from time to time, they have not been able to give any number to be tagged with this appeal for disposal. In that view of the matter, as many as 161, which we take it for the time being as 159 appeals, against the judgment, appeals have been allowed to become final; as one appeal has been dismissed by this Court solitarily, we decline to go into and examine the merits in the matter for reducing the compensation. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. In case the appellants are able to point out at a later date that the appeals have been filed against the rest of 159 appeals, liberty is given to them to file an application for review in this appeal and it should be considered accordingly.

pp. 1105–1106, margin G

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. No costs. · R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1106, margin D