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

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN versus KISHAN AND ORS.

Decided
27 April 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 855 · 1995 INSC 308
Also cited as
  • AIR 1995 SC 1891 (2 citing judgments)
  • (1995) 4 SCC 147 (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.

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.

Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 17, 1980 acquiring the lands in question. The Collector made an award for a sum of Rs. 38,500. Since the petitioner laid claim for a higher amount, a reference under s.18 was made. The civil court disbelieved the. agreement of sale put forth by the petitioner; therefore, reference was ordered in favour of the respondents. In appeal , the High Court said that the said agreement was in violation of s.4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act, 1972 and that, therefore, the agreement is void. Accordingly, the findings of the Reference Court was accepted. Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.

p. 856, margin B

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the under the agreement of sale dated 5th December, 1981 the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession of the land and that, therefore, by operation of s.53-A of the Transfer the Property Act, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. In a reference, the dispute is to the title to receive the compensation. It is settled law that the agreement of sale does not confer title and, therefore, the agreement holder, even assuming that the agreement is valid, does not acquire any title to the property. It is seen that the agreement is subsequent to the notification under s.4(1). The Government is not bound by such an agreement. The inter-se dispute is only with respect to the title as on the date of notification under s.4(1). The Respondent is the undoubted owner of the property as per s.4 notification and that, therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondent since he is one of the members. We cannot find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts. However, if the petitioner has got any claim under s.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is open to him to take such action as open to him under law.

p. 856, margin D

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 856, margin G