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

SURAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS ETC versus UNION OF INDIA

Decided
13 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 640 · 1996 INSC 882

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.

This case relates to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on October 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated December 16, 1964 granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per bigha. on reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated May 20, 1970 enhanced the compensation varying between Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000 per bigha in respect of ABC Blocks. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated September 11, 1984 enhanced the compensation to the uniform rate of Rs. 7,000 per Bigha. DfssatiSfied therewith, the claimants have filed these appeals.

p. 640, margin F

SURATSINGHv. U.0.1.

p. 641

Though there is some force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants that there is a difference between the earlier cases and this case, since the notification in the earlier cases dated back to 1959 and this notification to 1961, the sale instances relating to the small pieces of land cannot be solely relied upon when lands of an extent of around 16000 and odd bighas is acquired. There is no proof of these' saletransactions. Moreover, even if they were true, 1/3rd of the value towards development charges has to be deducted. This exercise was not done. Even if it is done, the appellant will get less than what was awarded by the High Court. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order made by the High Court since the State did not file any appeal.

p. 641, margin A

The appeals are accordingly dismissed No costs . T.NA. . Appeals dismissed.

p. 641, margin C

''

p. 641, margin C