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

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NANAKCHAND PYARMAL AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 579 · 1995 INSC 772
Also cited as
  • (1996) 1 SCC 297 (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.

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.

Leave granted.

p. 580, margin C

We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on February 4, 1970 acquiring a large extent of land. The Collector made the award and paid compensation which was accepted by the respondents without protest. It would appear that one of the claimants covered under the same notification sought reference under. section 18 and the District Judge, Raigarh at Alibag in Reference No. 183/86 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10 per square meter by his award and decree dated November 6, 1987. Against the said award and decree, the State carried First Appeal No. 1038/88 which was admitted on February 16, 1989 and ad iiitelim stay of the award and decree of the District Court was granted subject to certain conditions.

p. 580, margin C

The respondents thereon filed an application under section 28A(l) on February 2, 1988 for redetermination of the amount of compensation to their lands on the basis of the said award of the District Judge. It would appear from the record that the Collector made a draft award and referred the matter to the State Government for approval. At that stage the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated August 24, 1922 directed the Land Acquisition Officer to declare the award by the end of November 1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.

p. 580, margin E

In view of the fact that the award of the Reference Court, referred to hereinbefore, is already the subject matter of the appeal pending decision in the High Court, appropriate course would be to keep the reference application made under section 28A(l) pending till disposal of the appeal in the High Court. The Collector shall take action only on the basis of the judgment that may be rendered by the High Court. Until then, the matter be kept pending. The writ petition stands dismissed subject to the above direction.

pp. 580–581, margin G

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 581, margin A