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 KERALA versus MALAYALAM PLANTATION LTD.

Decided
12 September 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 572 · 1995 INSC 561

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.

Notification acquiring 8.83 hectares of land for the purpose of constructing the dam was published on January 30, 1971 under Section 19 of the Kerala Land Acquisition act, 1963. The purpose of acquisition was to extract the granite lying in the area under acquisition. The Land acquisition Officer awarded separately for granite, apart from the land where no granite is available. On a reference made to the Civil Court, a Commi..<;sioner came to be appointed, who on personal inspection noted that 7,12,500 cubic Meters granite was available in 15.77 acres of land. He assessed the rate at Rs. 1,02,493. The Reference Court accepting the report relating to the quantum of granite available, extent of the land and the value thereof, determined the land value at a sum of Rs. 17,717.59 as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, and awarded an additional compensation in a sum of Rs. 98,011.07 for the granite as well as value of the trees standing on the land. The respondent filed cross-objections and the High Court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 1,78,125.

pp. 572–573, margin G

The High Court and the Reference Court had appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the compensation for the granite, as assessed by the Commissioner, would be as determined by it. We do not think that there is any error of law in assessing the evidence warranting interference.

p. 573, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 573, margin D