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

GHANSHYAM DASS KEDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI N.P. SINGH, SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
7 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 678 · 1997 INSC 379

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.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 678, margin G

This Court by order dated December 12, 1995 in Union of India & Ors. v. Ghanshyam Dass Kedia & Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 285 had given direction to the DDA and the Union of India that 19 persons, the appellants therein, be given 330 sq. yard each uniformly for construction of their houses, as per plans sanctioned by the authorities, with all other amenities. It would appear that there was some problem which was not brought to the notice of the Court al the time when the matter was disposed of. I. As. were filed, one by the Union of India and one by ODA. As per the application filed by the Union of India, they proposed four alternatives for allotment of the plots to them. After going through the record, we have put them to the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for some of them, has also discussed with the parties. After the discussion, it now emerges that alternative No. IV proposed by the Union of India is acceptable and is accordingly accepted by them. As per that, residential !lats are required to be constructed for the said 19 petitioners in an ex1ent of one acre of the land. The area required for the said !lats to be constructed by them will be "A.B.C.D.-1.00 acre'' and P & SP to be with ODA, the area is of 2 acres; thus, total area required is 3 acres. Hence, there is no need to cut the existing trees growth. It is suggested that the petitioners themselves would make the construction under the direction and supervisions of the ODA. That also is agreed. The Government of India would change land use zone. The DOA is directed to give necessary sanction to lhe plans and supervise the construction; the petitioners would construct lhe !lats according to the specifications and as per the sanction given by the DOA. Union of India is directed to change the user of lhc land within two months from the date of the receipt of the order and DOA is directed to give necessary sanction and allot the land within four weeks thereafter.

pp. 678–679, margin G

The Contempt Petition and I.As. are disposed of in the above terms. T.N.A. Petitions disposed of.

p. 679, margin E