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

STATE OF ORISSA versus DHOBEI SETHI AND ANR.

Decided
29 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 139 · 1995 INSC 511
Also cited as
  • (1995) 5 SCC 583 (8 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
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.

p. 140, margin A

A notification under s.4(1) of the Land acquisition Act [for short, 'the Act') was published on July 16, 1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dee. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530- 32 situated at village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tahsil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under s.17(4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under s.5-A of the Act. The declaration under s.6 of the Act was published on April 27, 1972. Notice under ss.9 and 10 was published in the locality in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O.J.C. NO. 43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under s.17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under s.5-A Similarly, some other owners filed O.J.C. No. 1573 of 1978, claiming interest for part of the land pursuant to a sale made after the notification namely in November, 1973: Both the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry s.5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.

p. 140, margin A

As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.

p. 140, margin D

As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was issued as early as on July 16, 1970, the writ petition having been filed after 7 years, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of !aches. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has not properly exercised its power under Article 226 of the constitution in upsetting the notification dated December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.

p. 140, margin E

The appeals are according all~wed but in the circumstances without costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 140, margin F