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

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ALIGARH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
27 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 389 · 1997 INSC 327

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.

These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on October 17, 1994 in F.A. No. 271/1994 and batch.

p. 389, margin G

The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on June 3, 1979 acquiring a total extent of 24.9 acres of land for public purpose, namely, for establishment of road transport depot. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 11.25 per sq. yard. On reference under Section 18 of Act, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25 per sq. yard. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. Thus, these appeals.

pp. 389–390, margin G

On our direction the learned counsel for the parties have placed on record the adduced evidence. It is now admitted position that two sale deeds has been filed in support of the claim of higher compensation but neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined to substantiate those documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be considered. The reference Court also did not properly consider the claims in the legal perspective. Thus, we find that the approach adopted by the High Court as well as the reference Court is not correct in law. However, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. We set aside the award and decree of the reference Court and that of the Division Bench of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the in the light of the law laid down by this Court and then decide the,compensation accordingly within six months from the receipt of this, nrder.

p. 390, margin B

The appeals are, accordingly, allowed but, in the circumstances without costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 390, margin E