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. ETC. versus LAXMAN GAJANAN DESAI AND ANR. ETC.

Decided
25 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 872 · 1996 INSC 441

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.

Leave granted We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

p. 872, margin E

In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15356/92 dated February 26, 1996, the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. 2333/1983 by order dated July 29, 1991 directed that the appellants cannot insist upon the respondents conceding to the title of the Government. It directed the appellant to renew the licence without insisting upon conceding the title of the appellant. In the appeal, this Court had held that for obtaining licence/renewal, title to the property or a lease. from the. owner is a pre-condition. In that case, the Deputy Collector had held that the respondent had title to property and appeal thereon was pending. Accordingly this Court had directed the appellant to grant renewal of the licence pending decision on title.

pp. 872–873, margin F

In these cases, admittedly, no decision on title has yet been given by any authority. The respondents are directed to file their claims before the competent authority (Collector/District MagL,trate, as the case may be) within one month from today either as an owner or a lessee from the owner. The competent.authority is direct~d'to issue ·notice to the Central Government and after considering the material and affording an opportunity of hearing and after taking into consideration the law on vesting, dispose of all those applicatiOJ).S on title. Subject to ihe result the~ein, the licences under the Salt Act would be issued/renewed. Pending decL,ion, the appellants are directed to grant renewal. The authority direded to dispose of those matters within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the c9py ofth~ orde~. · . '

p. 873, margin A

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. 'R:P. Appeals disposed of.

p. 873, margin C

~. ~

p. 873, margin C