Supreme Court of India
JAGE RAM AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 9 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 49 · 1995 INSC 710
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment 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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The only question raised in these two writ petitions is whether an observation is to be made by this Court to the .effect that the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of alternative sites by the Delhi Development Authority. It is true that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a defence purpose, viz., establishment of Radar. They were duly paid the compensation demanded of. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions is that since they have been displaced from Uieir holdings, they need some site for construction of their houses and that, therefore, the Government of India may make an effort to provide them alternative sites. We are aware of the decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi, [1986) 4 SCC 251 at 260. But it depends upon the acquisition for which it was made. In that case, acquisition related to planned development of housing scheme by Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, though no scheme was made providing alternative sites to those displaced persons whose lands were acquired and who themselves needed housing accommodations, a direction was given to the Meerut Development Authority to provide alternative sites for their housing purpose. Since the acquisition is only for defence purpose and if the request is acceded to, it would create innumerable complications, we are constrained not to accede to forceful pursuasive argument addressed by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
pp. 49–50, margin F
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.
p. 50, margin D