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

ADAVALA SATHAIAH AND ORS. versus THE SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT I AND ORS.

Decided
26 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 209 · 1996 INSC 1388

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.

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 to 14 and 18 have, left their respective · places without any instructions as per endorsement made by the Postal authorities. Under these circumstances, notice on them is not necessary. Regarding respondent Nos. 4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17 and 19 to 20, it is stated that neither unserved envelops nor AD. Cards have been received back by the Registry. Under these circumstances, they must be deemed to have been served. Even though the petitioners succeed, these respondents cannot get the same benefit because they did not challenge the award. They being pro forma respondents, notice on them is not necessary.

pp. 209–210, margin G

Leave granted.

p. 210, margin A

' <<< Heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 210, margin A

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the A.P. High Court, made on March 3, 1992 in the Appeal NO. 2660/85. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on D~cember 8, 1979, acquiring 71 acres 12 cents of land for the public purpose, namely, erection of National Thermal Power Corporation. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4000 and Rs. 4500 per acre for Group I and Group II of the lands. On reference, the subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation tO Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,500 per acre for Group I and Group II respectively. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration. Thus ·this appeal by special leave.

p. 210, margin B

It is seen that all the lands were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition and their prevailing market value varies between Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 6,500 per acre. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper if the compensation is fixed at Rs. 6,000 per acre uniformly to all the lands. It is ordered accordingly.

p. 210, margin D

The appeal is allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 210, margin E