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

Y ALAMANCHI RANGA RAO AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Decided
5 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 83 · 1997 INSC 476

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 on both sides.

p. 83, margin G

The facts in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1670/94 are that notification under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on August 11, 1971 acquiring 700 acres of land. The award came to be passed on 18.10.1976. The Appellants did not seek reference u/s 18 .. The reference court in respect of similar lands by its award and decree dated 30.1.1985 and 31.1.1985 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 450 in MJC No. 32n9 and 29/79, for each fruit (coconut) bearing tree. The appellants filed their application under Section 28-A on April 30, 1985 within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court. It was not decided. Again, enhancement was made by the High Court by judgment dated January 5, 1995 enhancing the compensation to Rs. 650 per fruit bearing tree in P.A. No. 166/84. The appellants again made an application on May 23, 1990 before the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination, which was rejected. The High Court has dismissed the writ petitions on April 30, 1993. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

pp. 83–84, margin G

In view of the fact that the appellants had filed the written reference applications within three months from the date of the award of enhanced compensation by the reference Court in the connected matters, which are admittedly covered under the same notification issued under Section 4(1), the appellants are entitled to seek a reference under Section 28-A but this was not done. The application for reference under Section 28-A after the judgment of the High Court is not maintainable.

p. 84, margin C

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to redetermine the compensation for the properties of the appellants acquired under the said notification in accordance with the award passed by the High Court as per the reference application dated April 30, 1985 and pass appropriate award as per law which would be subject to result of the appeal, if any, filed by the State in these connected appeals. No costs. R.P. appeals allowed.

p. 84, margin E