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

SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS versus SMT. SANTOSH SHARMA AND ANR.

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

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 171 · 1996 INSC 1380
Also cited as
  • (1997) 2 SCC 637 (5 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.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

p. 171, margin E

Notice was sent to the respondents as early as on July 25, 1991 but neither the unserved notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so far been received from the respondents. So notice must be deemed to have been on them.

p. 171, margin E

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23.1.1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga of Tehsil & District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000. • On aPPeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for appellants contended that in several judgments, this Court has confirmed deduction upto A 40% of the compensation towards development charges and that, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and

pp. 171–172, margin F

was approved. In this case the Division Bench has accepted this : B I am of the view a deduction of the 40% would be reasonable."

p. 172

We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has correctly applied the principle and we find no ground to interfere with it.

p. 172

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 172