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

KASHI RAM NAMDEO ZAMBRO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
31 October 1995
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 617 · 1995 INSC 659
Also cited as
  • (1996) 1 SCC 289 (6 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

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 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short' 'the Act) was published in the State Gazelle on January 16, 1975, acquiring certain extent of land part of which land belonged to the appellant for construction of 'Panzar Talaw'. The Collector made his award under Section lJ on November 15, 1977. Notice of award as required under Section 12 was served on the appellant on November 17, 1977. On an objection raised, the appellant made good the deficit court-fee. Thereafter the Collector made the reference to the Civil Court. During the reference proceedings, the counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the reference which was upheld since requisite court-fee was not paid within the limitation of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice of the award, as required under clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. On appeal, the High Court upheld the contention by judgment dated 27th to 29th April, 1982 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave against the decree of the Bombay High Court.

p. 618, margin A

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is required to pay court-fee on an application seeking reference under Section 18. We are at a loss to understand that a claimant is required to pay ad valoram court fee on an amount awarded by the Collector under section 11 for seeking reference under section 18. What is required is to make a written application with particulars envisaged under Section 18(2) of the Act, to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred to Civil Court to decide his objection regarding measurement of the land or the amount of compensation or the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation awarded to the persons interested. The Act is a self-contained Code and it does not speak of payment of any court-fee. It requires only that the application should be made within the limitation prescribed either in clause (a) or (b) of Sub-section (2) of the Act. rt is, therefore, clear that non-payment of the deficit court-fee, though wrongly made by the appellant, is not a necessary. The owner or person interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on the application made under section 18(1) seeking reference for determination of the compensation by the Civil Court etc. The Civil Court and the High Court, therefore, have committed grave error of Jaw in rejecting the claim of the 1ppellant for determination of the compensation.

pp. 618–619, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of Courts below stand set aside. The Civil Court shall now proceed to determine the compensation according to law. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed·.

p. 619, margin A