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

MASIPATLA RAGHAVULU versus THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAO, PEDDAPALLI

Decided
15 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 492 · 1996 INSC 394

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.

Intervention is allowed. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 492, margin F

Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') acquiring large extent of land for National Thermal Power Corporation, was published on September 22, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation @ Rs3,000 per acre. On reference, the learned sub-Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,500 per acre. On appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order passed by the learned sub-Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 492–493, margin G

It is not in dispute that when for the same purpose another land was acquired from Maidpalli village to which Lingapur is a hamlet, the Corporation itself had taken decision to withdraw the appeals since the compensation was less than Rs. 8,000. On that basis, the High Court confirmed the market value at Rs. 8,400 per acre in Appeal Nos. 869 and 871 of 1985. In view of the fact that the Corporation itself had taken a policy decision to withdraw the appeals where the value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre and less, and since the lands are situated in the hamlet of the main village Maidpalli which are contiguous blocks, the determination of the compensation in respect of these lands also would be at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre.

p. 493, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The appellant is entitled to solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation at the rates prevailing prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 493, margin C