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

U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOMENT CORPORATION LTD versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
19 October 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 581 · 1994 INSC 470
Also cited as
  • (1995) 2 SCC 766 (5 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.

Cited by

Cited in 3 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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (page_count_mismatch). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 582, margin A

Thease appeals arise from the judgment of the High c;ourt of Allahabad dated 29.11.1992 made in W.P. No.16908/89 and batch. The only controversy in these cases is whether the Collector was right in determining the compensation under s. 28-A of the Act. The notification under s.4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act No. 1 of 1894, for short 'the Act', was published on February 9, 1962. the Collector passed the awards relating to three villages on different dates determining the compensation. Some of the claimants received the compensation without protest and some on protest. Those who received the compensation under protest sought for and secured references under s. 18 to the Civil Court. The Addi. District Judge, Ghaziabad in his award and decree dated May23, 1987 enhanced the compensation. The State filed F.A. No. 668of1987 which io pending disposal in the High Court at Allahabad. The claimants who received the compensation without protest made applications under s.28-A (1) of the Act. Following the award of the District Court, the land acquisition officer passed the award under s. 28-A (2) of the Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High Court in the writ petitions which were dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.

p. 582, margin B

The entfre controversy has been considered by this Court inBabua Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. dated 4.10.1994 rendered in C.A. Nos. 563/94 and batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against the award of the Dist!. Judge made under s.26 of the Act, the proper course open to the L.A.0., on an application made under s.28-A(l) of the Act, would be to keep the applications under s.28-A(l) pending till the appeal filed against the award of the District Judge is disposed of by the High Court and then to take action as per s.28-A(2) of the Act, Following the law laid down therein and subject to directions contained therein, we hold that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Therefore, the order of the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions. Collector made under s.28-A (2) is quashed. The Collector/L.A.O. is directed to keep the application filed udner s. 28-A (1) of the Act pending till the disposal ofthe appeal. On receipt of the judgment from the High Court or in an appeal by this Court the L.A.O. is direct to determine the compensation based on the final judgment according to law.

p. 582, margin D

The appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 582, margin G