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 AND ORS. versus SITARAM SHIVHANDRAI GARODIA AND ANR.

Decided
4 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 389 · 1996 INSC 1278

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.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 389, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, dated August 11, 1994 made in W.P.No.2705 of 1986.

p. 389, margin G

It is not necessary to dilate upon all the facts concerning the case. Suffice it to state that the respondents have challenged the acquisition of part of the land in Survey No. 249 admeasuring 130 acres 19 Guntas which the respondent claims to have purchased. It would appear that in the affidavit filed by the Railway, they have .given up the proposal for the acquisition of the land for Railway purpose. Under those circumstdnces, there is no necessity to proceed further with the acquisition. It is then contended by Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that in W.P. No. ·1003 of 1Q82 titled Sitaram Shivchand Garodia and Anr. v. S. V. Gokhale, the Assistant Salt Commissioner and Ors. the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated April 28, 1983 had allowed the writ petition setting aside the proceedings for summary eviction of them from the land in their occupation with liberty' for the Union of India. to file a suit to establish their title to the ·iand. When S.L.P.(C) Nos. 8706 of 1984 and 11507-08 of 1983, against the said judgment were filed, by Order dated March 30, 1987, this Court refused ·to grant leave. The appellant's attempt to have respondent evicted from the lands stands conclude4 subject to the division in the suit. We are informed that though the appellants have filed Suit No. 670/87 on the original side of the High Court, it is contended that as per the cause title, it would appear that the respondents have not been impleaded as party-defendants. We need not go into the correctness thereof, since the respondents though exf~cie are shown to be not parties to the suit; even then, it would be open to the Government to take steps as may be available under law for impleading them as defendants, if not already impleaded, and in such eventuality it would be open to the respondents, to take such defence as is available.

pp. 389–390, margin G

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

p. 390, margin E