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

INDER SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

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

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 737 · 1995 INSC 679

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.

p. 738, margin A

The appellant had sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(h) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on two grounds, namely, on delay as well as on merits. Thus this appeal by special leave.

p. 738, margin A

The Land Acquisitior• Collector, the competent authority, had passed the award determining compensation at varied rates, namely, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 2001 in respect of three different belts of land. Thereupon, 22 persons including the appellants herein had agreed to receive the compensation and executed 'K' Form. Agreement as per Rule 9(5)(i) of the Rules made under the Act and accepted and compensation without protest. Section 8(b) of the Act requires appointment of arbitrator when there is no agreement between the parties reached on the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.

p. 738, margin B

In view of the above circumstances, the appellants having received the compensation under Form 'K' without protest, Rule 9 (5) (i) would apply to them and they arc not entitled under Section 8(b) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

p. 738, margin D

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 738, margin D