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

SHRI IRSHAD ALI AND ORS. versus HAZI ABDUL SUKHUR MOZUMDAR AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 472 · 1997 INSC 528

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 learned counsel for both the parties.

p. 472, margin E

This appeal arises against the judgment and order dated July 12, 1996 in Review Application No. 1 of 1995 and the main judgment dated October 8, 1993 in First Appeal No. 8 of 1989.

p. 472, margin F

The admitted position is that the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share of the acquired land. The total extent of the land acquired is 10 Bighas, 15 Khatas, 2 c;hattaks and 5 gondas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation against which the parties sought reference for re-determination of compensation etc. under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. The Reference Court by its award dated September 7, 1988 enhanced the compensation, and awarded compensation. To the extent of the claim of the respondent No. 1, namely, 3 bighas, 16 kathas, 1 chatak, namely 1/3rd of the entire land, he filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court enhanced the Compensation. Thereafter, the appellant filed his application under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC for review of the order. After reconsidering the matter and the main order, the High Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. In view of the fact that the total extent of the land is 10 Bighas, 15 kathas, 2 chattaks, 5 gondas, as referred earlier, in which admittedly respondent No. 1 is having 1/3rd share, the first respondent had waived his claim for higher compensation for the above extent of the land. Since the appellants had not challenged the award of the reference Court and the award has become final to the extent of their share, they are not entitled to any higher compensation for the extent of 1/3rd share.

pp. 472–473, margin F

The appeals are therefore, dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

p. 473, margin C