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

NATWARBHAI MAGAINBHAI PATEL versus COLLECTOR AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 646 · 1996 INSC 664
Also cited as
  • (1996) 5 SCC 498 (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.

Delay condoned.

p. 646, margin E

Counsel for the petitioner admits that a notification under Section 10(5) of the Urban Ceiling Act was published pursuant to which the excess vacant land was surrendered and taken possession of by the Government. Consequently, the land stands vested in the State free from all the encumbrances. In what manner the lands require to be utilised has been regulated under the provisions of the Act. It is not a condition, under the Act, that payment of compensation be made before utilisation of the land of which the petitioner was erstwhile owner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Appeal No. 4093/93 on May, 15, 1995.

p. 646, margin E

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 646, margin G