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

UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. versus SUNIL CHANDRA SAHA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Decided
25 July 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 316 · 1995 INSC 413
Also cited as
  • (1995) 5 SCC 311 (2 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

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.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted in the S.L.Ps.

p. 317, margin C

Unnumbered paragraph

We do not propose to express any opinion on merits. Suffice it to state that neither the claimants nor the Land Acquisition Officer had adduced any legally admissible evidence in proof of the market value prevailing as on the date of notification or in rebuttal. The appellantsbeneficiaries are entitled to a notice and participation in the award inquiry as well as in the reference and could adduce evidence in rebuttal to the claim of higher compensation. Unfortunately, the appellants had no notice nor an opportunity to adduce evidence. Both the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer merely marked the sale deeds without examining either the vendor or the vendee to bring on record the circumstances in which the sale deeds came to be executed, the distance of the lands to the acquired lands, the nature of the respective lands and whether they would offer comparable sales to determine just and fair market value to the acquired lands. In the absence of such relevant and material evidence it would be difficult to determine compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The award and decree of the Reference Court as confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The cases are remitted to the reference court for disposal.

p. 317, margin C

Unnumbered paragraph

The appellants are directed to appear before the reference court on August 28, 1995. Parties are at liberty to adduce such legal evidence as is necessary to determine true and correct market value of the land prevailing as on the date of the notification. The reference court is directed to consider and dispose of these cases within three months from August 28, 1995 after giving opportunity to all the parties.

p. 317, margin F

Unnumbered paragraph

No costs. G.N. Disposed of .

p. 317, margin G