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 WEST BENGAL versus LOHIT KUMAR ROY

Decided
24 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 11 · 1996 INSC 779
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.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequently the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @Rs. 2,310 per acre. In this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 735, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000 per acre relying upon Ext. l(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisition and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this document came to be executed between the parties who are claiming higher compensation. It would be obvious that after the first notification was issued and before the second notification came to be published this document was brought into existence to inflate the market value. Under these circumstances, the High Court in another case was well justified in doudting the correctness of it. Unfortunately, except that document, there is no other evidence for enhancement of the compensation. But in view of the fact that large extent of the lands are involved and we do not have the advantage of any other evidence or assistance from respondents, we are not inclined to confirm the award of the Collector. Under these circumstances, we set aside the award of the court and the High Court and remit the matter to the reference court lo decide the compensation afresh on the basis of the evidence vis-a-vis any other reference pending before it having similar facts and decide that matter according to law.

pp. 11–12, margin F

The appeal in accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 12, margin D