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

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI BULANDSHAHAR ETC. versus GANGA SAHAI AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
23 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 855 · 1996 INSC 776
Not shown
1 other citation string 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.

Substitution allowed. Leave granted.

p. 855, margin G

We have heard counsel for the parties. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on May 25, 1976 acquiring the land in question for the purpose of establishing the agricultural market yard. The awar<l under Section 11 was made by the Collector on May 10, 1977. On reference the Additional District .Judge by his awar<l and decree dated September 15, 1979 enhanced the compensation lo Rs. 10 per sq. y<l. with solatium at 15% and interest al 6%. On appeal, the High Court enhance<l the compensation to Rs. 15 per sq. yd. The High Court also enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 as well as the additional amount under Section 23(1-A). Thus these appeals by special leave.

pp. 855–856, margin G

It is not necessary to dilate upon all the facts but the point that another Division Bench had followed the earlier order and awarded common market value to all the lands. Though Shri O.P. Rana, lemncd senior counsel, is right that in the first case the Division Bench had not given cogent reason for enhancement of the market value from Rs. JO lo Rs. 15 sq. yd., we find that. the reference .Court had given various reasons for confining lo the market value at Rs. 10 per sq. yd. Though the basis under \vhich the market value dctcrn1ined by the I-Jigh Court \Vas not after proper appreciation of evidence, the principle involved in dctcrn1ining the con1pensation cannot be faulted. Though \VC are not satisfied \Vith the reasoning of the Division Bench, are not inclined to interfere with the enhancement of the compensation to Rs. '15 per sq. yd, However, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount since the reference Court had made the award and decree on September 15, 1979 that is much earlier to the introduction of the Amendment Act 68/1984. Therefore, the enhancement of 30% solatium, interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till date of deposit and also of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimants will be entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6(:7c on enhanced con1pcnsation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit as ordered by this Court in the interim order.

p. 856, margin B

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals disposed of.

p. 856, margin F