ACQUISITION PROCEDURE AND LAWS IN KARNATAKA

CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF NEW LAND ACQUISITION LAW 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Wed, 5 Jun 2019 01:56:00 -0700

Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 the Supreme Court has observed as under:

19. The court is duty bound to prevent the abuse of the process of law in the cases which have been concluded several decades before, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases of dead claims or stale claims. There are several numbers of cases coming to this court in which matters had been contested up to this court questioning the acquisition and the petitions have been dismissed by this court, and acquisition has attained finality, possession was taken, the award passed. Notice had been issued under Section 12(2) of the Act tendering the awarded amount but it has not been collected by the claimants/land owners deliberately or they had refused to collect it and are not ready and willing to accept it and, thereafter, it has been deposited in the name and account of the owners in the treasury which is also deposited as per the State Government’s instructions issued time to time relating to how Government money is to be dealt with. The act of failure to deposit money under section 31 after possession is taken only imposes liability to pay higher interest under section 34. The acquisition would not lapse under the Act.

20. In our opinion, the cases in which there is deliberate action of the owners for not collecting the compensation and they do not want to receive it, section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not come to their rescue as provisions are to help those persons who are deprived of compensation but not for those who deliberately had not received it and litigated for decades for quashing of proceedings avoiding to receive compensation by willful act. The failure to deposit in court under section 31(1) in such cases would attract only interest as envisaged under section 34 of the Act and the provisions of section 24 cannot be so invoked in such cases.

21. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.

22. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.

23. The High Court has observed that Raisina is a part of the Lutyens zone of Delhi. It is prime of New Delhi and Government offices etc. are located. The petitioners asked the High Court to infer and conclude that in the absence of some indication of the record being made available by them that their ancestors have not ever received any compensation. How the petitioners came to know that their ancestors had not received compensation has not been disclosed in the petition. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain such claims. The protective umbrella of section 24 is not available to barred claims. If such claims are entertained under section 24, it would be very-very difficult to distinguish with the frivolous claim that may be made even after tampering the records etc. or due to non-availability of such record after so much lapse of time. Once right had been lost due to delay and laches or otherwise, it cannot be revived under provisions of section 24 of the Act of 2013. The intendment of Act 2013 is not to revive stale and dead claims and in the concluded case when rights have been finally lost. If there is delay and laches or claim is otherwise barred, it is not revived under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The provision does not operate to revive legally barred claims.

The provision of Section 24 does not invalidate courts judgments/orders in which right have been finally lost or due to inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims. The provisions of the law cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. It is not conceivable how the petitioners could file such a petition in a laconic manner relating to the prime locality at New Delhi that too for hundreds of acres with the delay of more than 100 years.

24. The prayers that have been made in writ petition are not only misconceived, there is an attempt to stop the ongoing construction activity. It has also been mentioned that Government offices etc. have come up and the Government has leased property to private parties also but still, the prayer has been made to stop the construction activity. It passes comprehension how such relief could ever be asked for. No authority had ever been approached by the petitioners or by their ancestors. As such the petition is aimed at the total misuse of the process of law. Even for a moment, such a petition could not have been received for consideration.

25. We have seen in a large number of cases that the acquisition had attained finality, compensation had been tendered but not received and development had also taken place. Petitions are being filed in the courts under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that they have not been paid any compensation. In fact, if there is any such grievance, they themselves are responsible for not collecting the compensation that was offered and tendered to them. The provision of section 24 is not intended to apply and extend help in such cases."23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.

The above decision was reaffirmed by the judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 where it was observed as under: "128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have been contested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost the cases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged that physical possession has not been taken from them, such claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We have come across the cases in which findings have been recorded that by which of drawing a Panchnama, possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained in view of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not supersede or annul the court‟s decision and the provisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those who first deliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge in ill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, for decades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to help those who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite it being the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do, and/or who have been illegally deprived of their possession for five years or more; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable to the landowners/claimants.

130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of 2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have come barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law. Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never, even for a moment, intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts."

CASE LAW DIGEST ON NEW LAND ACQUISITION ACT

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:12:00 -0700

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183: 2014 AIR SCW 787 (PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI AND OTHERS)
"Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) - Land Acquisition At, 1894 (2 of 1894), Section 31 - Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under 1894 Act by virtue of Section 24(2) of RCTE Act 2013 - Acquisition Proceedings were initiated under 1894 Act and Award was passed - Landowners filed writ petition challenging Acquisition on ground that Award was made more than five years prior to commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation has been paid to owners nor amount of Compensation has been deposited in Court - Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, contemplates that where an award has been made five years or more prior to commencement of 2013 Act, but physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings still stand lapsed - Award was made on 31.01.2008 and compensation amount was deposited in Government Treasury, since landowners did not receive compensation - Expression "compensation has not been paid" occurred in 2013 Act - Compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if Compensation has been offered to person interested and such compensation has been deposited in Court - Mere deposit of compensation amount in Government Treasury is of no avail and Land Acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed for non-compliance of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act." ………………… The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 114, however, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention of the Corporation.

In a comparatively recent decision, this Court in Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Ors. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 506, relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71, has held that the deposit of the amount of the compensation in the state's revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the state to pay interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited in Court.

Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors (2014) 6 SCC 564; In order to clarify the statutory provisions of the Act 2013 with respect to such lapsing, the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Division, came up with a circular dated 14.3.2014 wherein on the basis of the legal opinion of the Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified as under:
“3. Interpretation of five years period:
“With regard to this issue viz., interpretation of five years period two situations have been envisaged in cases where the acquisition has been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 viz., (1) parties whose lands have been acquired have refused to accept the compensation and (2) parties whose lands have been acquired having just parted with physical possession of the land. However, in both the above situations, as on 1.1.2014, the period of 5 years would not have ended and in such cases, the advisory seeks to clarify that the new law shall apply only if the situation of pendency continues unchanged for a period that equals to or exceeds five years. In my view, it should be further clarified that in none of the cases the period of five years would have elapsed pursuant to an award made under Section 11 from the date of commencement of the Act and that the benefit of Section 24(2) will be available to those cases which are pending and where during pendency, the situation has remained unchanged with physical possession not being handed over or compensation not having been accepted and the period equals to or exceeds five years.
4. Limitation:
As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only to cases where awards were passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1.1.2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the Act, to avoid any ambiguity.
Since this legislation has been passed with the objective of benefiting the land-losers, this interpretation is consistent with that objective and also added as a matter of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation challenging an award cannot be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has elapsed or not. If the possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid due to the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, the pendente lite period will be included to determine the five year period and including such period if the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, then the said acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have elapsed and fresh proceedings, if so desired, will have to be initiated in accordance with the new Act.”
Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2014 (10) SCALE 388 held that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceedings might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted by any court. It was conclusively held that the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for grant of relief in favour of land owners even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any reason.

Rajiv Choudhrie Huf vs Union Of India & Ors Civil Appeal No.8785 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2014 The plain wordings used by the Legislature under the provisions of Section 24(2) are made very clear and do not create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the court is not required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation, as held by this Court in the case of C.I.T., Mysore v. The Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. AIR 1959 SC 713.

Bhargava & Associates Pvt.Ltd.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors Decided on 10 March, 2015 - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5126 of 2008. In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the Award is over five years old and (b) that compensation has not been paid or (c) that possession of the land has not been taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed.
Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2011 decided on 12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have prospective operation only. This Court therein held as under: "The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-Section without giving retrospective effect to the same."

LAND ACQUISITION - IF THE PURPOSE IS CORRUPT THE RESULTANT ACT IS BAD

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:06:00 -0700

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Others, AIR 1980 SC 319, 1980 SCR (1)1071 has held as under. It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Articles 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power. ............... Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power-sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and often times overlaps motives, passions, and satisfactions-is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfillment of a legal object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. ........ Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act. ....................

MODE OF CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION RE-EXPLAINED BY SUPREME COURT 2012 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:05:00 -0700

JUSTICE P. Sathasivam, and JUSTICE J. Chelameswar of The Supreme Court of India in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust(Regd) ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors. Decided on 27 April, 2012 has held that "It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."

QUOTED CITATIONS

In Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 3 SCC 659, this Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation.

In Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 533, this Court considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for grant of higher compensation.

In ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, this Court held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum.

In Union of India vs. Harpat Singh & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants’ land would come to Rs.1,82,000 per acre as on the date of notification.

Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. While considering various decisions of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana vs. Kailashwati, AIR 1980 P&H 117, this Court held that the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In view of the same, it is clear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The above position has been further clarified by a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457.

Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur vs. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC). In this case, this Court has held thus: “… where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case.”

In State of Punjab and Another vs. Hansraj (Dead) by LRS. Sohan Singh and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 734, this Court has held that method of working out the ‘average price’ paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value.

Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (supra) and Hansraj (supra) held in para 20 as under: “20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.” Again, in para 23, it was held that “the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified.”

REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 AND ITS LIMITATIONS AND PROCEDURE

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:04:00 -0700

In Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 545, Court interpreted Section 18 and laid down the following propositions:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.

The Court then held: When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.

PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN EMERGENT LAND ACQUISITION IS MADE 2011 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:03:00 -0700

The Apex Court in the case of Radhy Shyam (dead) Through LRs and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 5 SCC 553, has in fact culled out the principles, which are required to be followed in case of exercise of emergent powers for acquisition of the land of a citizen by the sovereign State, curtailing his right of property as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The principles, which have been specifically laid-down by the Apex Court, are thus :

"(i) Eminent domain is a right inherent in every sovereign to take and appropriate property belonging to citizens for public use. To put it differently, the sovereign is entitled to reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State including private property without its owner's consent provided that such assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good
(ii) The legislations which provide for compulsory acquisition of private property by the State fall in the category of expropriatory legislation and such legislation must be construed strictly
(iii) Though, in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the Government can acquire the private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory taking of one's property is a serious matter. If the property belongs to economically disadvantaged segment of the society or people suffering from other handicaps, then the court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to scrutinise the action/decision of the State with greater vigilance, care and circumspection keeping in view the fact that the landowner is likely to become landless and deprived of the only source of his livelihood and/ or shelter.
(iv) The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities without complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his right to property without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the landowner or other interested persons.
(v) Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) confers extraordinary power upon the State to acquire private property without complying with the mandate of Section 5-A. These provisions can be invoked only when the purpose of acquisition cannot brook the delay of even a few weeks or months. Therefore, before excluding the application of Section 5-A, the authority concerned must be fully satisfied that time of few weeks or authority concerned must be fully satisfied that time of few weeks or months likely to be taken in conducting inquiry under Section 5-A will, in all probability, frustrate the public purpose for which land is proposed to be acquired.
(vi) The satisfaction of the Government on the issue of urgency is subjective but is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 17(1) and the same can be challenged on the ground that the purpose for which the private property is sought to be acquired is not a public purpose at all or that the exercise of power is vitiated due to mala fides or that the authorities concerned did not apply their mind to the relevant factors and the records.
(vii) The exercise of power by the Government under Section 17(1) does not necessarily result in exclusion of Section 5-A of the Act in terms of which any person interested in land can file objection and is entitled to be heard in support of his objection. The use of word "may" in sub- section (4) of Section 17 makes it clear that it merely enables the Government to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply to the cases covered under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17. In other words, invoking of Section 17(4) is not a necessary concomitant of the exercise of power under Section 17(1).
(viii) The acquisition of land for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional purposes can be treated as an acquisition for public purposes within the meaning of Section 4 but that, by itself, does not justify the exercise of power by the Government under Sections 17(1) and/or 17(4). The court can take judicial notice of the fact that planning, execution and implementation of the schemes relating to development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas usually take few years. Therefore, the private property cannot be acquired for such purpose by invoking the urgency provision contained in Section 17(1). In any case, exclusion of the rule of audi alteram partem embodied in Sections 5-A(1) and (2) is not at all warranted in such matters.
(ix) If land is acquired for the benefit of private persons, the court should view the invoking of Sections 17(1) and/or 17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinise the relevant record before adjudicating upon the legality of such acquisition."

KIADB CANNOT ACT AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRIVATE PERSONS

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:00:00 -0700

N.Venkatesha Gowda and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others [2011 (4) KLJ 79] andPujari Pedanna v. State of Karnataka and Others [2009 (5) KLJ 556], KIADB cannot act as a real estate agent and acquire land for the benefit of private persons de hors the object of the act. In the second case, it was held that acquisition of land for private Engineering College was not in furtherance of the objects of the KIAD Act and without authority of law. In that case, 1 Acre 35 Guntas of land was sought to be acquired for housing P.G.Block, Electrical Block, Staff Quarters and Boys Hostel, for an Engineering College.

AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TOWN BE TREATED AS URBAN LAND

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 05:59:00 -0700

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.34303 OF 2012 (LA-RES) in the case of Sri N V Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka, Decided on 10 March, 2014 There is one aspect however which requires to be taken note of by this Court and which is a glaring circumstance. It is not in dispute that the lands in question are treated as agricultural lands and are referred to by their survey numbers, apparently indicating that what is sought to be acquired is agricultural. It is also not in dispute that the lands are in the middle of the Town and not on the outskirts. If this is so, even if the lands remain as agricultural lands in the revenue records, the area is entirely built up and the lands have lost their character of agricultural land and to that extent, the petitioners being deprived of just compensation, would result in grave injustice. Therefore, given the admitted circumstance that the lands in question are well within the Town limits and are surrounded by built up areas and it is evident that one of the petitioners has even obtained conversion of the land belonging to him and has constructed a shopping complex which would establish that the adjacent lands of other petitioners are equally very much inside the Town and ought to be treated as urban land.

LOCUS STANDI OF A PERSON WHO PURCHASES THE LAND SUBSEQUENT TO A NOTIFICATION BEING ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ACT

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 1 Jun 2015 05:58:00 -0700

In Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 2112, Court held that, any one who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril.
In Sneh Prabha v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 540, Court held that a Section 4 notification gives a notice to the public at large that the land in respect to which it has been issued, is needed for a public purpose, and it further points out that there will be "an impediment to any one to encumber the land acquired thereunder." The alienation thereafter does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser is entitled only to receive compensation.

Similarly, in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1170, Court held that, purchase of land after publication of a Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchaser may be a person-interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation.
In Ajay Kishan Singhal v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2677; Mahavir and Anr. v. Rural Institute, Amravati and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 335; Gian Chand v. Gopala and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 528; and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177, Court categorically held that, a person who purchases land after the publication of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings for the reason, that his title is void and he can at best claim compensation on the basis of vendor's title. In view of this, the sale of land after issuance of a Section 4 notification is void and the purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.

LAND ACQUISITION BY HOUSING SOCIETIES THROUGH ILLEGAL CONTRACTS CANNOT BE LEGALISED 2012 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:18:00 -0700

Justice G.S. Singhvi, and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly in the case of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs State Of Karnataka Decided on 02-02-2012 Discussed following case law on the subject of land acquisition in favour of Housing Societies. In this case also the Estate Agent, namely, M/s. Rejendra Enterprises with whom the appellant had entered into an agreement dated 21.2.1988 had played crucial role in the acquisition of land. The tenor of that agreement does not leave any manner of doubt that the Estate Agent has charged huge money from the appellant for getting the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the 1894 Act and sanction of layout plan by the BDA. The respondents could not have produced any direct evidence that the Estate Agent had paid money for facilitating the acquisition of land but it is not too difficult for any person of reasonable prudence to presume that the appellant had parted with crores of rupees knowing fully well that a substantial portion thereof will be used by the Estate Agent for manipulating the State apparatus. Therefore, we do not find any justification to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling and legitimize what has been found by the Division Bench of the High Court to be ex-facie illegal.

In Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka ILR 1991 (3) KAR 2248, the Division Bench of the High Court considered whether the acquisition of land made on behalf of 7 house building cooperative societies including H.M.T. Employees' Cooperative Society and Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society was for a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f)(vi) or the same was colourable exercise of power by the State Government. A reading of the judgment shows that when the writ petitions questioning the acquisition of land were placed before the learned Single Judge, he felt that the points which were raised by the petitioners had not been considered in the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Narayana Raju v. State of Karnataka ILR 1989 KAR 376, which was confirmed by this Court in Narayana Raju v. State of Karnataka ILR 1989 KAR 406 and referred the matter to the Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench first considered whether the acquisition of land on behalf of house building cooperative societies was for a public purpose. After noticing the relevant statutory provisions, the Division Bench referred to the judgments of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Chaturbhai Narsibhai AIR 1975 SC 629, General Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Kedar Nath (1981) 2 SCC 352 and M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited v. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto AIR 1985 SC 736 and held that the earlier decisions support the writ petitioners' plea that they were entitled to be heard before the Government could grant approval for the acquisition of land on behalf of cooperative societies, but their plea cannot be accepted in view of the latter judgment. The Division Bench further held that the aggrieved person can raise all points during the course of an inquiry held under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. The Division Bench then referred to the averments contained in Writ Petition Nos.7683, 7699/1988 in which the acquisition of land for various House Building Cooperative Societies was challenged, the advertisement issued by the society, agreement entered into between HMT Cooperative Society and the Estate Agent who assured that he will get the acquisition approved at an early date subject to payment of the specified amount, various reports including the one prepared by G.V.K.Rao, order dated 14.1.1991 passed by the State Government and quashed the acquisition. ………. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the whole acquisition was vitiated due to malafides and manipulations done by the House Building Cooperative Societies through the Estate Agent. The Division Bench also referred to Section 23 of the Contract Act, judgment of Supreme Court in Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung JT 1991 (1) SC 433 and held as under: “Applying the ratio of the above judgment, there can be no doubt that the Agreements entered into between the six respondent- Societies and their respective agents in which one of the condition was payment of huge sums of money by the Society to the agent in consideration of which the agent had to get the Preliminary and Final Notifications issued by the Government, was for the purpose of influencing the Government and to secure approval for acquisition of the lands and therefore opposed to public policy.” ……. The question however, for our consideration is, whether the impugned Notifications are liable to be quashed. In our opinion, once it is clear that the Agreement entered into between the Societies and the agents concerned, under which the purport of one of the clauses was that the agent should influence the Government and to procure Preliminary and Final Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively are opposed to public policy, the impugned Notifications being the product or fruits of such an agreement are injurious to public interest and detrimental to purity of administration and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. ………… The irresistible inference flowing from the facts and circumstances of these cases is, whereas the power conferred under the Land Acquisition Act is for acquiring lands for carrying out housing scheme by a housing society, in each of the cases the acquisition of lands is not for a bona fide Housing Scheme but is substantially for the purpose of enabling the concerned office bearers of respondent-Societies and their agents to indulge in sale of sites in the guise of allotment of sites to the Members/Associate Members of the Society and to make money as alleged by the petitioners and therefore it is a clear case of colourable exercise of power. Thus the decision of the Government to acquire the lands suffers from legal mala fides and therefore the impugned Notifications are liable to be struck down. ……….. If requirement of Section 3(f)(vi) is not strictly enforced, every housing cooperative society shall approach the appropriate Government for acquisition by applying Section 3(f) (vi) instead of pursuing the acquisition under Part VII of the Act which has become more rigorous and restrictive. In this background, it has to be held that the prior approval, required by Section 3(f)(vi), of the appropriate Government is not just a formality; it is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of acquisition by the appropriate Government for a housing scheme of a cooperative society.

LAND ACQUISITION FINAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN ONE YEAR

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:16:00 -0700

K.B. Ramachandra Raje Urs vs State Of Karnataka AIR 2001 Kant 512 , The final notification is also bad in law for another reason. Section 6(1)(ii) of the L.A. Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act') stipulates that no declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the present case the preliminary notification issued under Section 16(1) of the 1903 Act shall be construed as the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and the final notification issued under Section 18(1) of the 1903 Act shall be construed as the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act. Since the final notification was not issued within one year from the date of preliminary notification, the final notification is bad in law. This position of law is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mariyappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1. 1998(4) Kar. L.J. 701 (SC) : AIR 1098 SC 1334 : ILR 1998 Kar. 1339 (SC)

LAND ACQUISITION - IF THE PURPOSE IS CORRUPT THE RESULTANT ACT IS BAD

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:13:00 -0700

MODE OF CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION RE-EXPLAINED BY SUPREME COURT 2012 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:06:00 -0700

REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 AND ITS LIMITATIONS AND PROCEDURE

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:04:00 -0700

In Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 545, this Court interpreted Section 18 and laid down the following propositions:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.

The Court then held: When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.

PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN EMERGENT LAND ACQUISITION IS MADE 2011 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 4 May 2013 06:00:00 -0700

SIGNIFICANCE OF TITLE – POSSESSION – ENCUMBRANCE IN LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS 2013 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:55:00 -0800

Justice R.M. Lodha, and Justice Anil R. Dave of Supreme court of India in the case of Saraswati Devi (D) By Lr. vs Delhi Devt.Authority & Ors. Decided on 29 January, 2013,

In Sharda Devi, (2003) 3 SCC 128 this Court was concerned with the question whether the State could proceed to acquire land on an assumption that it belonged to a particular person, whether in such situation the award passed by the land acquisition officer could be called in question by the State seeking a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act on the premise that the land did not belong to the person from whom it was purportedly acquired and was a land owned by the State having vested in it, consequent upon abolition of proprietary rights, much before the acquisition. This Court examined and analysed provisions of the LA Act and also considered few earlier decisions of this Court and the decisions of some high courts. Considering the question in light of the above, this Court held as under: “27. We have entered into examining the scheme of the Act and exploring the difference between reference under Section 18 and the one under Section 30 of the Act as it was necessary for finding out answer to the core question staring before us. The power to acquire by the State the land owned by its subjects hails from the right of eminent domain vesting in the State which is essentially an attribute of sovereign power of the State. So long as the public purpose subsists, the exercise of the power by the State to acquire the land of its subjects without regard to the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land cannot be questioned. (See Scindia Employees' Union v. State of Maharashtra [(1996) 10 SCC 150], SCC para 4 and State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh [1995 Supp (2) SCC 475], SCC para 7.) The State does not acquire its own land for it is futile to exercise the power of eminent domain for acquiring rights in the land, which already vests in the State. It would be absurdity to comprehend the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act being applicable to such land wherein the ownership or the entirety of rights already vests in the State. In other words, the land owned by the State on which there are no private rights or encumbrances is beyond the purview of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The position of law is so clear as does not stand in need of any authority for support. Still a few decided cases in point may be referred since available.

In Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri [AIR 1955 SC 298] the Court held that when the Government possesses an interest in land which is the subject of acquisition under the Act, that interest is itself outside such acquisition because there can be no question of the Government acquiring what is its own. An investigation into the nature and value of that interest is necessary for determining the compensation payable for the interest outstanding in the claimants but that would not make it the subject of acquisition. In the land acquisition proceedings there is no value of the right of the Government to levy assessment on the lands and there is no award of compensation therefor. It was, therefore, held by a Division Bench of Judicial Commissioners in Mohd. Wajeeh Mirza v. Secy. of State for India in Council [AIR 1921 Oudh 31: 24 Oudh Cas 197] that the question of title arising between the Government and another claimant cannot be settled by the Judge in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the Government itself claims to be the owner of the land, there can be no question of its acquisition and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applicable. In our opinion the statement of law so made by the learned Judicial Commissioners is correct.”

What is the effect of provisional possession which was given to the appellant’s husband in 1960 on approval of his highest bid? Does it amount to creation of an encumbrance in the property? If the provisional possession given to the appellant’s husband amounted to creation of an encumbrance, whether the said property could have been acquired under the LA Act although the ownership vested in the central government? The fate of the appeal significantly will depend upon answer to these questions.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary [Tenth Edition, Revised] defines “encumbrance” – 1. a burden or impediment. 2. Law a mortgage or other charge on property or assets.
Webster Comprehensive Dictionary [International Edition; Volume I] defines “encumbrance” as follows: “1. That which encumbers. 2. Law Any lien or liability attached to real property. 3. One’s wife, child or dependent. Also spelled incumbrance.
In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon [Second Edition Reprint 2000] with reference to a decision of the Patna High Court in Mahadeo Prasad Sahu v. Gajadhar Prasad Sahu AIR 1924 Patna 362, the term “encumbrance” is explained as follows : “Encumbrance. Burden or property; impediment; mortgage or other claim on property. Grant of lands rent free or the grant of the landlords zarait land to a tenant for the purposes of cultivation does amount to an encumbrance of the estate. Apart from mere dealings such as mortgages which create a charge upon the land, there are other dealings which amount to an encumbrance. Anything which interferes with the unrestricted rights of the proprietors as they then existed would be an encumbrance upon the land, even the granting of a lease of zarait lands, that is to say the lands which the landlord is entitled to hold in direct possession and to cultivate for his own purposes. A lease of such lands granted to an occupier in circumstances which would give him a right of occupancy over the land, would amount to an encumbrance.”
In Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri and Others, AIR 1955 SC 298 the term “encumbrance” as occurring in Section 16 of the LA Act has been explained by this Court to mean interests in respect of which a compensation was made under Section 11 or could have been claimed thereunder.
In M. Ratanchand Chordia & Ors. v. Kasim Khaleeli, AIR 1964 Madras 209 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word “encumbrances” with reference to the 1954 Act and the LA Act in the context of the easemantary right of way. The Division Bench considered the word “encumbrances” thus : “The word "Encumbrances" in regard to a person or an estate denotes a burden which ordinarily consists of debts, obligations and responsibilities. In the sphere of law it connotes a liability attached to the property arising out of a claim or lien subsisting in favour of a person who is not the owner of the property. Thus a mortgage, a charge and vendor's lien are all instances of encumbrances. The essence of an encumbrance is that it must bear upon the property directly and in-directly and not remotely or circuitously. It is a right in realiena circumscribing and subtracting from the general proprietary right of another person. An encumbered right, that is a right subject to a limitation, is called servient while the encumbrance itself is designated as dominant. . . . . . . .”
The word “encumbrance”, according to its ordinary significance, means any right existing in another to use the land or whereby the use by the owner is restricted. The word “encumbrance” imports within itself every right or interest in the land, which may subsist in a person other than the owner; it is anything which places the burden of a legal liability upon property. The word “encumbrance” in law has to be understood in the context of the provision under consideration but ordinarily its ambit and scope is wide. Seen thus, it is difficult to see why a binding contract entered into between an auction-purchaser and the government on approval of the highest bid relating to sale of property, which is part of compensation pool under Section 14 of the 1954 Act followed by provisional possession to the auction-purchaser, should not come within the purview of the word “encumbrance”.
It is well known in law that a person in possession of the property – though not owner – is entitled to certain rights by virtue of his possession alone. We are in agreement with the view of the Punjab High Court in Roshan Lal Goswami6 that an auction-purchaser on provisional possession being given to him possesses possessory rights, though he does not have proprietary rights in the auctioned property. Thus, there remains no doubt that in October, 1960 or near about encumbrance in the subject property came to be created.
The next question is whether on creation of an encumbrance, the subject property could have been acquired under the LA Act although the ownership in the land vested in the central government. Ordinarily, when the government possesses an interest in land, which is the subject of acquisition under the LA Act, that interest is outside such acquisition because there can be no question of the government acquiring what is its own. This is what this Court said in Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri AIR 1955 SC 298 but this rule is not without an exception. There is no impediment in acquisition of land owned by the central government by invoking the provisions of the LA Act where such land is encumbered or where in respect of the land owned by the government some private interest has been created. As a matter of fact, Sharda Devi11 does not hold to the contrary. It is so because what Sharda Devi (2003) 3 SCC 128 holds is this : the acquisition of land wherein the ownership or the entirety of rights already vested in the State on which there are no private rights or encumbrance such land is beyond the purview of the LA Act. In other words, if the government has complete ownership or the entirety of rights in the property with it, such land cannot be acquired by the government by invoking its power of acquisition under the LA Act but if some private rights have been created in such property or the property has encumbrance(s), the acquisition of such land is not beyond the pale of the LA Act.

SIGNIFICANCE OF TITLE – POSSESSION – ENCUMBRANCE IN LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS 2013 SC by

PRIVATE FORESTS ACQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED EVEN IF IT IS VESTED WITH GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAND REFORMS LEGISLATION 2011 SC - CB

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:54:00 -0700

JUSTICE S.H.KAPADIA, JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE In the case of RAJIV SARIN & ANR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS., 09/08/2011 2011 AIR 3081 = 2011 (9 ) SCR 1012 = 2011 (8 ) SCC 708 = 2011 (9 ) JT 524 = 2011 (8 ) SCALE 446

FACTS IN ISSUE:- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation even when their forest land is acquired by the government, merely because the appellants had not derived any income from the said forest, is one of the several important questions of law which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal.

HELD:- When State exercises the power of acquisition of a private property, provision is generally made in the statute to pay compensation to be determined according to the criteria laid down in the statute itself - In the instant case, acquisition of property by State in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy was to distribute the material resources of the community - It does not require payment of market value or indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated - The acquisition and payment of amount are part of the same scheme and they cannot be separated - Though adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law, but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory……………Revenue authorities denying compensation stating that the KUZALR Act did not provide for a method to compute compensation in cases where no income was derived from the forests - Held: Awarding no compensation attracts the vice of illegal deprivation of property even in the light of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction - The intention of the legislature to pay compensation is abundantly clear from the fact that s. 19 itself prescribes that compensation payable to a hissedar u/s 12 shall, in the case of private forest, be eight times the amount of average annual income from such forest - In the instant case, income also includes possible income in case of persons who have not exploited the forest and have rather preserved it - In fact, the persons who are maintaining the forest and preserving it for future and posterity cannot be penalised by giving nil compensation - The Assistant Collector is directed to determine and award compensation to the owners of the property by following a reasonable and intelligible criterion evolved on the guidelines provided and in the light of the law enunciated in the judgment - The owners will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of handover/physical possession of the State till the date of payment.

OTHER POINTS OF LAW DISCUSSED:-

AGRARIAN REFORMS AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF LANDS:- It is settled law that agrarian reforms fall within Entry 18 of List-II read with Entry 42 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules, 1965 declares that the forests belonging to the State shall be managed by "Goan Sabha or any other local authority established" upon a notification issued by the State Government. This being so, it clearly brings out that the vesting of forest land under the KUZALR Act is directly linked with the agrarian reforms, as the land as also the forest are managed by the Goan Sabha or any local authority dealing with the rights of villagers for betterment of village economy. So, where the land acquired by the State is to be transferred to a Goan Sabha / Village Panchayat for its management and use of land leading to betterment of village economy, the legislation is in the nature of agrarian reforms.

PLEA OF REPUGNANCY:- It is trite law that the plea of repugnancy would be attracted only if both the legislations i.e. one made by Parliament and the other by the State Legislature, fall under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Repugnancy between the two statutes would arise if there is a direct conflict between the two provisions and the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field. Therefore, whenever the issue of repugnancy between the law passed by Parliament and of State legislature are raised, it becomes quite necessary to examine as to whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter or different…………… It is by now a well-established rule of interpretation that the entries in the three lists of the Seventh Schedule being fields of legislation, must receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit and not a narrow or pedantic approach. For repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, there is a twin requirement, which is to be fulfilled: firstly, there has to be a "repugnancy" between the Central and the State Acts; and secondly, the Presidential assent has to be held as being non-existent. The test for determining such repugnancy is indeed to find out the dominant intention of the both legislations and whether such dominant intentions of both the legislations are alike or different. …………….A provision in one legislation in order to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation, but such partial or incidental coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not attract the doctrine of repugnancy. Thus, in order to attract the doctrine of repugnancy, both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject. While considering the issue of repugnancy what is required to be considered is the legislation in question as a whole and its main object and purpose, and while doing so incidental encroachment is to be ignored and disregarded. ……………..Repugnancy in the context of Article 254 of the Constitution is understood as requiring the fulfillment of a "Triple test", reiterated by the Constitution Bench in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 case, namely, (i) that there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act; (ii) that such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable; and (iii) that the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other. The two legislations must cover the same field. This has to be examined by a reference to the doctrine of pith and substance…………….As and when there is a challenge to the legislative competence, the courts will try to ascertain the pith and substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in question. In this process, it would also be necessary for the courts to examine the true nature and character of the enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable to a field of the legislation allotted to the respective legislature under the constitutional scheme. Thus, whether on account of the exhaustive code doctrine or whether on account of irreconcilable conflict concept, the real test is that would there be a room or possibility for both the Acts to apply. Repugnancy would follow only if there is no such room or possibility. …………… KUZALR Act is a law principally relatable to Entry 18 (land) of List II read with Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule and only incidentally trenches upon "forest" i.e. Entry 17A/List-III of the Seventh Schedule. This is so because it is an enactment for agrarian reforms and so the basic subject matter is "land". Since the land happens to be forest land, it spills over and incidentally encroaches on Entry 17A i.e. "forest" as well. On the other hand, the Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests Act 1927 is relatable to Entry 17A read with entry 42, both of List III of the Seventh Schedule. It is in pith and substance relatable to Entry 17A, as it deals with "forests" and not with "land" or any other subject. It only incidentally spills over in the field of Entry 42, as it deals with "control over forest land and not property of the Government" and in that context s.37, as an alternative to management of forests u/s. 36 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, deals with the grant of power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. ………………………It is quite clear that the KUZALR Act relates to agrarian reforms and, therefore, it deals with the "land"; however, the Indian Forests Act 1927 deal with "forests" and its management, preservation and levy of royalty/fees on forest produce. KUZALR Act further provides for statutory vesting, i.e., statutory taking over of property of hissedar, which happens to be 1st January 1978, i.e. the statutorily fixed date. Therefore, this forest land becomes the property of the State Government and is dealt with like land, which is acquired u/s 4A of KUZALR Act. This emerges from a reading of r. 41 of the KUZALR Rules itself. Further, the acquisition under the KUZALR Act is a case of "taking" upon payment of an amount, which is not intended to be the market price of the rights acquired. On the other hand, the power of acquisition u/s 37 of the Indian Forests Act 1927 Act is an acquisition based on the principles of public purpose and compensation. Thus, not only do the two Acts relate to different subject matters, but the acquisitions mentioned therein are conceptually different. ………………. In fact, it is the UP Private Forest Act, 1948, which is an enactment relatable to Entry 17A of List III, i.e., `forests', read with Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, i.e., acquisition to the extent of "vested" forests. It is this Act which covers a field similar to that of the Central Act and, therefore, sought and obtained the permission of the President u/s. 76 of the Government of India Act. Thus, in the State, there are two Acts, which are applicable viz. the UP Private Forests Act, 1948, which is in the same field as the Indian Forest Act 1927 and the KUZALR Act, which is in respect of a different subject matter. …………………….. KUZALR Act deals with agrarian reforms and in the context deals with the private forests and vests the same with the State and such private forests would, therefore, be managed by the Goan Sabha. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 has nothing to do with agrarian reforms but deals with forest policy and management, and, therefore, is in a different field. Further, there is no direct conflict or collision, as the Indian Forest Act, 1927 only gives an enabling power to the government to acquire forests in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, whereas KUZALR Act results in vesting of forests from the dates specified in s. 4A of the KUZALR Act. Consequently, it could be deduced that none of the three conditions is attracted to the facts of the instant case. ……………It is, thus, crystal clear that in the instant matter, no case of repugnancy is made out, as both the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the KUZALR Act operate in two different and distinct fields. Accordingly, both the Acts are legally valid and constitutional. That being so, there was no requirement of obtaining any Presidential assent. Consequently, Article 254(2) of the Constitution has also no application in the instant case.

DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY :- The incident of deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution normally occurred mostly in the context of public purpose. Any law which deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be amenable to judicial review. With regard to claiming compensation, all modern constitutions which are invariably of democratic character provide for payment of compensation as the condition to exercise the right of expropriation. Under Indian Constitution, the field of legislation covering claim for compensation on deprivation of one's property can be traced to Entry 42 List III of the Seventh Schedule. The Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 deleted Entry 33 List I, Entry 36 List II and reworded Entry 42 List III relating to "acquisition and requisitioning of property". The right to property being no more a fundamental right, a legislation enacted under the authority of law as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution is not amenable to judicial review merely for alleged violation of Part III of the Constitution.

The Government is empowered to acquire land by exercising its various statutory powers. Acquisition of land and thereby deprivation of property is possible and permissible in accordance with the statutory framework enacted. Article 31(2) of the Constitution has since been repealed by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978. It is to be noted that Article 300A was inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 by practically reinserting Article 31(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, right to property is no longer a fundamental right but a right envisaged and conferred by the Constitution.

When the State exercises the power of acquisition of a private property thereby depriving the private person of the property, provision is generally made in the statute to pay compensation to be fixed or determined according to the criteria laid down in the statute itself. It must be understood in this context that the acquisition of the property by the State in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy was to distribute the material resources of the community including acquisition and taking possession of private property for public purpose. It does not require payment of market value or indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated. Payment of market value in lieu of acquired property is not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition. It must be clearly understood that the acquisition and payment of amount are part of the same scheme and they cannot be separated. It is true that the adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law, but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory.

Section 12 of the KUZALR Act, 1960 states that every hissedar whose rights, title or interest are acquired u/s. 4, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation. Further, s. 4A of the KUZALR Act makes it clear that the provisions of Chapter II (Acquisition and Modifications of existing rights in Land), including s.12, shall apply mutatis mutandis to a forest land as they apply to a khaikhari land. Further, the intention of the legislature to pay compensation is abundantly clear from the fact that s. 19 itself prescribes that the compensation payable to a hissedar u/s. 12 shall, in the case of private forest, be eight times the amount of average annual income from such forest. In the instant case, income also includes possible income in case of persons who have not exploited the forest and have rather preserved it. Otherwise, it would amount to giving a licence to owners/persons to exploit forests and get huge return of income and not to maintain and preserve it. The same cannot be said to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the KUZALR Act. In fact, the persons who are maintaining the forest and preserving it for future and posterity cannot be penalised by giving nil compensation only because of the reason that they in fact chose to maintain the forest instead of exploiting it.

As mandated by Article 300A, a person can be deprived of his property but in a just, fair and reasonable manner. In an appropriate case the court may find `nil compensation' also justified and fair if it is found that the State has undertaken to take over the liability and also has assured to compensate in a just and fair manner. But the situation would be totally different if it is a case of `no compensation' at all.

COMPENSATION TO BE PAID :- A law seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that `no compensation' would be paid. The instant case is a case of payment of `no compensation' at all. In the case at hand, the forest land which was vested on the State by operation of law cannot be said to be non-productive or unproductive by any stretch of imagination. The property in question was definitely a productive asset. That being so, the criteria to determine possible income on the date of vesting would be to ascertain such compensation paid to similarly situated owners of neighbouring forests on the date of vesting. Even otherwise, revenue authority can always make an estimation of possible income on the date of vesting, if the property in question had been exploited by the appellants and then calculate compensation on the basis thereof in terms of ss. 18(1) (cc) and 19(1) (b) of KUZALR Act. ………………. Awarding no compensation attracts the vice of illegal deprivation of property even in the light of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction. ………………….The validity of the KUZALR Act and particularly of ss. 4A, 18(1) (cc) and 19 (1) (b) thereof is upheld. The Assistant Collector is directed to determine and award compensation to the appellants by following a reasonable and intelligible criterion evolved on the guidelines provided and in light of the law enunciated by this Court in the instant judgment. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of dispossession till the date of payment provided the possession of the forest was handed and taken over formally by the respondent physically and provided the appellant was totally deprived of physical possession of the forest. However, it is clarified that in case the physical/actual possession has not been handed over by the appellantsto the State government or has been handed over at some subsequent date i.e. after the date of vesting, the interest on the compensation amount would be payable only from the date of actual handover/physical possession of the property in question and not from the date of vesting.

LAND ACQUISITION CASE LAWS DECIDED BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FROM 1973 TO 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:25:00 -0700

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA .VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DOJ : 14/02/2012 ORDER - LAND ACQUISITION -PROCEEDINGS -CHALLENGE -DELAY - CITATION(S) 2012 (2 ) SCALE 644

B. ANJANAPPA & ORS. .VS. VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 07/02/2012 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING SOCIETY -APPROVAL -STATE GOVERNMENT
CITATION(S) 2012 (2 ) SCALE 504

BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 02/02/2012 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -CHALLENGE - CITATION(S) 2012 (3 ) SCC 727 = 2012 (2 ) JT 87 = 2012 (2 ) SCALE 235

STATE OF M.P. & ANR. .VS. BHERU SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 01/02/2012 JUDGEMENT- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION -LAND ACQUISITION -DAM -CONSTRUCTION - CITATION(S) 2012 AIR 1062 = 2012 (2 ) JT 326 = 2012 (2 ) SCALE 297

KAMAL TRADING PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.) .VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. DOJ : 13/12/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -HEARING -OPPORTUNITY
CITATION(S) 2012 AIR 823 = 2011 (13 ) SCR 529 = 2012 (2 ) SCC 25 = 2011 (14 ) JT 126 = 2011 (13 ) SCALE 511

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. .VS. JAGGA SINGH (DECEASED) THRU L.RS. & ANR. DOJ : 15/11/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2012 (1 ) SCC 74 = 2011 (13 ) JT 263 = 2011 (12 ) SCALE 617

SHRI AMBYA KALYA MHATRE (D) THRU LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 12/09/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE COURT -POWER - CITATION(S) 2011 (9 ) SCC 325 = 2011 (11 ) JT 23 = 2011 (10 ) SCALE 296

KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 09/09/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ENCROACHMENT -GAON SABHA LAND -SUIT FOR TITLE - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 3590 = 2011 (9 ) SCC 126 = 2011 (10 ) JT 541 =

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR. DOJ : 02/09/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -VALUATION - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 3834 = 2011 (9 ) SCC 207 = 2011 (10 ) JT 573 =

DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 23/08/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NCR REGION -PERIOD OF LIMITATION -EXPIRY - CITATION(S) 2011 (9 ) SCC 164 = 2011 (9 ) JT 390 = 2011 (9 ) SCALE 310

DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. DOJ : 18/08/2011 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PROCESS -LAPSE - CITATION(S) 2012 AIR 573 = 2012 (12 ) SCR 191 = 2011 (9 ) SCC 354 = 2011 (9 ) JT 440 = 2011 (9 ) SCALE 201

K.T. PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 09/08/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ROERICH AND DEVIKA RANI ESTATE -CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 3430 = 2011 (13 ) SCR 636 = 2011 (9 ) SCC 1 = 2011 (9 ) JT 65 = 2011 (8 ) SCALE 583

FIDA HUSSAIN & ORS. .VS. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. DOJ : 19/07/2011 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 3001 = 2011 (9 ) SCR 290 = 2011 (12 ) SCC 615 = 2011 (8 ) JT 333 = 2011 (7 ) SCALE 757

SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. & ANR. .VS. SANGH DASS & ANR. 2005 AIR 891 = 2005 (9 ) SCC 217 = 2005 (1 ) JT 46 = 2005 (1 ) SCALE 38 DOJ : 05/01/2005 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -LAND & BUILDING -OWNERSHIP -H P

SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS .VS. DIST. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS. DOJ : 05/09/2008 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -DECLARATION -CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE - CITATION(S) 2008 (13 ) SCR 126 = 2008 (9 ) SCC 552 = 2008 (9 ) JT 622 = 2008 (12 ) SCALE 367

JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. VINOD KUMAR & ORS. DOJ : 15/07/2011 JUDGEMENT - LAND ACQUISITION -EVACUEE PROPERTY - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 2765 = 2011 (7 ) SCALE 613

BINABAI BHATE .VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. DOJ : 04/07/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN -COMMITTEE -RECOMMENDATION - CITATION(S) 2011 (7 ) JT 510 = 2011 (6 ) SCALE 726

MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE & ORS .VS. SPECIAL L. A.O. UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI KARNATAKA DOJ : 10/05/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -DELAY -CONDONATION -ENTITLEMENT- CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 2439 = 2011 (6 ) SCC 321 = 2011 (6 ) JT 100 = 2011 (6 ) SCALE 1

BILKIS AND ORS .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS DOJ : 05/04/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2011 (5 ) JT 457 = 2011 (5 ) SCALE 257

SHANTA TALWAR & ANR .VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS DOJ : 05/04/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -METRO PROJECT -VALIDITY - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 1578 = 2011 (5 ) SCC 287 = 2011 (4 ) JT 584 = 2011 (4 ) SCALE 278

SYED MAQBOOL ALI .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. DOJ : 04/04/2011 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REMEDY - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 2542 = 2011 (4 ) SCALE 766

DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIA .VS. SUBODH SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 30/03/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -PERIOD -COMPUTATION - -DELAY -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION CITATION(S) 2011 (4 ) SCALE 71

KOKA SURYANARAYANA RAO & ORS .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFR & REV DIV OFFCR AP DOJ : 17/03/2011 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -REVIEW -EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS -SECOND PARTY -FINALITY - CITATION(S) 2011 (4 ) SCC 186 = 2011 (4 ) JT 123 = 2011 (3 ) SCALE 660

DEV SHARAN AND ORS .VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS DOJ : 07/03/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -EMERGENCY -PROVISION -JUSTIFICATION - CITATION(S) 2011 (4 ) SCC 769 = 2011 (3 ) JT 102 = 2011 (3 ) SCALE 369

BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA AND ORS .VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS DOJ : 23/02/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -HEARING -OPPORTUNITY - CITATION(S) 2011 (5 ) SCC 413 = 2011 (2 ) JT 549 = 2011 (2 ) SCALE 692

UNION OF INDIA .VS. GIANI DOJ : 17/02/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SECTION -OPERATION - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 977 = 2011 (2 ) JT 479 = 2011 (2 ) SCALE 500

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. AMARJIT SINGH & ANR. DOJ : 08/02/2011 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -ADDITIONAL AMOUNT - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 982 = 2011 (4 ) SCC 734 = 2011 (2 ) JT 393 = 2011 (2 ) SCALE 610

M NAGABHUSHANA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS DOJ : 02/02/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT -APPLICABILITY - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 1113 = 2011 (2 ) SCR 435 = 2011 (3 ) SCC 408 = 2011 (2 ) JT 23 = 2011 (2 ) SCALE 160

OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD .VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS DOJ : 18/01/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -TIME FRAME -BANGALORE - CITATION(S) 2011 (1 ) SCR 453 = 2011 (3 ) SCC 139 = 2011 (1 ) JT 384 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 533

LAND ACQUISITION OFICER-CUM-RDO, CHEVELLA DIVISION RANGA REDDY DISTRICT .VS. A. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS DOJ : 12/01/2011 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -MARKET VALUE -DEFERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 662 = 2011 (1 ) SCR 324 = 2011 (2 ) SCC 447 = 2011 (1 ) JT 132 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 298

GIRNAR TRADERS .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS DOJ : 11/01/2011 JUDGEMENT- REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -APPLICABILITY -AMENDMENT - CITATION(S) 2011 (3 ) SCC 1 = 2011 (1 ) JT 469 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 223

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GADAG & ORS. DOJ : 04/01/2011 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING BOARD -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 781 = 2011 (1 ) SCR 600 = 2011 (2 ) SCC 246 = 2011 (1 ) JT 539 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 203

BRIJ MOHAN & ORS. .VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DOJ : 03/01/2011 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS -ACTUAL COST -REVISED RATE CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 343 = 2011 (1 ) SCR 12 = 2011 (2 ) SCC 29 = 2011 (1 ) JT 100 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 1

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DIST. .VS. M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY (D) BY LRS. DOJ : 08/12/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -CLAIM -POSSESSION - CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCALE 427

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. BHOLA NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS & ORS. DOJ : 08/12/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 428 = 2011 (2 ) SCC 54 = 2010 (13 ) JT 324 = 2010 (13 ) SCALE 214

ANJANI MOLU DESSAI .VS. STATE OF GOA & ANR. DOJ : 07/12/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -CLAIM -VALUATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (14 ) SCR 997 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 710 = 2010 (13 ) JT 705 = 2010 (13 ) SCALE 524

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SAKAMMA DOJ : 30/11/2010 ORDER LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCALE 113

STATE OF U.P & ORS. .VS. JASVIR SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 26/11/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -PRESENCE -GOVERNMENT OFFICER - CITATION(S) 2010 (14 ) SCR 945 = 2011 (4 ) SCC 288 = 2011 (1 ) JT 446 = 2011 (1 ) SCALE 373

SARUP SINGH & ANR. .VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. DOJ : 25/11/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -ENTITLEMENT - CITATION (S) 2011 AIR 514 = 2010 SCR 131 = 2010 (13 ) JT 69 = 2010 (12 ) SCALE 424

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. .VS. KASHIRAM (DEAD) BY LR. GOPILAL DOJ : 23/11/2010 ORDER LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCALE 107

NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL(D) BY LRS & ORS .VS. DEPUTY COLLECTOR & LA & ANR DOJ : 19/11/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -THERMAL POWER PROJECT -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 (15 ) SCR 516 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 234 = 2010 (13 ) JT 17 = 2010 (12 ) SCALE 175

TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. .VS. SANTOSH BABANRAO WALKE & ORS. DOJ : 15/11/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -WRIT PETITION -DELAY - CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCALE 100

PRABHAKAR RAGHUNATH PATIL .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 11/11/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCR 586 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 107 = 2010 (12 ) JT 456 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 659

RAMJAS FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER .VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DOJ : 09/11/2010 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WAKF PROPERTY -EXEMPTION - CITATION(S) 2010 SCR 364 = 2010 (12 ) JT 134 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 598

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI .VS. M. MEIYAPPAN & ORS DOJ : 29/10/2010 JUDGEMENT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -WRIT PETITION -DELAY AND LATCHES -LAND ACQUISITION - CITATION(S) 2010 SCR 1184 = 2010 (12 ) JT 29 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 411

D. HANUMANTH SA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 27/10/2010 JUDGEMENT - LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -NOTIFICATION -CHALLENGE - CITATION(S) 2010 (12 ) SCR 1098 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 656 = 2010 (11 ) JT 432 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 344

CHIMANLAL KUBERDAS MODI (D) BY LRS. .VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. & ORS. DOJ : 22/10/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCR 722 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 635 = 2010 (11 ) JT 317 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 210

GURU GOBIND SINGH REFINERIES LTD. .VS. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS DOJ : 20/10/2010 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LAND -VALUATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (10 ) SCC 401 = 2010 (11 ) JT 210 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 105

WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION .VS. INDRAPURI STUDIO PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER DOJ : 19/10/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE -ARBITRATION
CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 47 = 2010 SCR 689 = 2010 (12 ) JT 72 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 129

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .VS. MUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS. DOJ : 08/10/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND REFORMS -LAND ACQUISITION -OCCUPANCY TENANCY RIGHTS -ENTITLEMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 SCR 250 = 2010 (11 ) JT 263 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 2

WHEN PENDING LAND OCCUPANCY GRANT PROCEEDINGS IF LAND ACQUIRED 2010 SC

JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU AND JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR IN STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .VS. MUNIKADIRAPPA & ORS. REPORTED IN 2010 SCR 250 DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS, THE COURT HELD THAT WHILE GRANT OF OCCUPANCY-TENANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS QUA THE PARCELS OF LAND IN THEIR RESPECTIVE POSSESSION AS ON THE APPOINTED DATE SHALL STAND AFFIRMED, THE QUESTION AS TO WHO IS ENTITLED TO WHAT COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID LANDS IN QUESTION IS LEFT OPEN TO BE DETERMINED IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IF NOT ALREADY DETERMINED. ….. THAT WAS A MATTER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COLLECTOR IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND EVENTUALLY BY THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT IN A REFERENCE IF THE SAME BECAME NECESSARY. IN AS MUCH AS THE DIVISION BENCH ITSELF DETERMINED THE EXTENT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS IT COMMITTED A MISTAKE.

RADHA MUDALIYAR .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQ.) T.N.H. BOARD DOJ : 08/10/2010 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE - CITATION(S) 2011 AIR 54 = 2010 (13 ) SCR 154 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 384 = 2010 (12 ) JT 185 = 2010 (11 ) SCALE 195

DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION IN LAND ACQUISITION PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED 2010 SC

JUSTICE DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR IN A CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN RADHA MUDALIYAR .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQ.) T.N.H. BOARD REPORTED IN AIR 2011 SC 54, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS “IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES, SUBJECT TO THEIR SATISFYING THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF LAW, ARE THE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE COMPENSATION. EVEN AWARDS AND TRANSACTIONS OF THE ADJACENT AREAS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS BEST EVIDENCE. OF COURSE, SUCH INSTANCES MUST BE COMPARABLE AND LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE……………….. NONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS HAD QUESTIONED THE GENUINENESS, LEGALITY OR OTHERWISE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND, IN FACT, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION REGARDING THEIR ADMISSIBILITY. ……………… WHILE DETERMINING COMPENSATION, THE DEDUCTION CAN BE APPLIED FOR DIFFERENT ASPECTS. IF THE SIZE OF THE PLOT IS VERY SMALL AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR NON-AVAILABILITY OF OTHER EVIDENCE AND THE LAND ACQUIRED IS A LARGE CHUNK OF LAND, THEN IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO APPLY SOME DEDUCTION ON THAT SCORE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION, TO CARRY OUT THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR THE MEPZ SANCTIONED BY THE SIPCOT. THE DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE, BEING IN PUBLIC INTEREST, IS BOUND TO RESULT IN UTILIZATION OF PART OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROADS, BY- LINKS, WATER AND ELECTRICITY LINES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURAL AMENITIES OF THE PROJECT. THIS COURT, DEPENDING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITES COULD VARY FROM 20% TO 70% DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE LAND, ITS SITUATION, THE PURPOSE AND STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE COURTS WOULD HAVE TO APPLY SOME GUESS WORK WHILE DETERMINING SUCH A QUESTION INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION WITH EXACTITUDE OR ARITHMETICAL ACCURACY. OF COURSE, THIS PERMISSIBLE GUESS WORK HAS TO BE USED WITH GREAT CAUTION AND WITHIN THE DETERMINANTS OF LAW DECLARED BY THIS COURT FROM TIME TO TIME. ……………………. THE HIGH COURT IGNORED AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE CASE IN NOT AWARDING ENHANCEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS IT HAD COME IN EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS INCREASING TREND IN THE SALE PRICE OF THE LAND IN THAT AREA. …………….. IT IS A COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND IT IS EXPECTED OF THE STATE TO BE JUST AND FAIR AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION TO THE CLAIMANTS WHICH SATISFIES MANDATE OF LAW CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. ………….. THE CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SOLATIUM AS WELL AS THE INTEREST ON THE AWARDED AMOUNT. THE COURT HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE COMPULSORY NATURE OF ACQUISITION IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM VOLUNTARY SALE OR TRANSFER. IN THE LATTER, THERE IS A WILLING BUYER AND SELLER. IN THE CASE OF ACQUISITION, IT IS COMPULSORY AND DEPRIVES THE OWNER OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE AND BARGAIN THE SALE PRICE OF ITS LAND AS IT WILL ENTIRELY DEPEND ON WHAT THE COLLECTOR OR THE COURT DETERMINES AS THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE SOLATIUM ENVISAGED IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 23 IS "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPULSORY NATURE OF ACQUISITION". THUS, THE SOLATIUM IS NOT THE SAME AS DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE LANDOWNER'S DISINCLINATION TO PART WITH THE LAND ACQUIRED. IF SUCH COMPENSATION AS DETERMINED IN TERMS OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT IS NOT PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND, THEN IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 34 INTEREST SHALL STAND ESCALATED TO 15% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OR PART THEREOF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PAID OR DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DATE OF SUCH EXPIRY. THE PERSON ENTITLED TO THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IS ALSO ENTITLED TO GET INTEREST ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT INCLUDING SOLATIUM. IN ANY CASE, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT IN LAW THAT THE CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SOLATIUM AND THE INTEREST THEREUPON AT THE RATE SPECIFIED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 34 OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD.”

RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS IN

HARCHARAN V. STATE OF HARYANA (1982) 3 SCC 408;
KANTABEN MANIBHAI AMIN V.SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BARODA (1989) 4 SCC 662;
ONGC LTD. V. SENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL (2005) 6 SCC 454;
SHAJI KURIAKOSE V. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (2001) 7 SCC 650;
KANWAR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA (1998) 8 SCC 136;
ONGC LTD. V. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL (2008) 14 SCC 745;
SARDAR JOGENDRA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2008) 17 SCC 133
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. NOOKALA RAJAMALLU (2003) 12 SCC 334;
K.S. SHIVADEVAMMA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER (1996) 2 SCC 62;
RAM PIARI V. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SOLAN (1996) 8 SCC 338;
CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDAS V. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA (1988) 3 SCC 751;
HASANALI WALIMCHAND (DEAD) BY LRS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1998) 2 SCC 388;
V. HANUMANTHA REDDY (DECEASED) BY LRS. V. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & MANDAL R. OFFICER (2003) 12 SCC 642;

CHARAN DASS (DEAD) BY LRS. V. H.P. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2009 (12) SCALE 293 –
SUNDER V. UNION OF INDIA (2001) 7 SCC 211

SRI RAMAKRISHNA MUTT REP. BY MANAGER .VS. M.MAHESWARAN & ORS. DOJ : 08/10/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -QUANTUM - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCR 1157 = 2011 (1 ) SCC 68 = 2010 (11 ) JT 118 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 686

V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO .VS. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER DOJ : 05/10/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCR 1144 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 650 = 2010 (11 ) JT 45 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 501

IYASAMY & ANR. .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION DOJ : 30/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -FIXATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (12 ) SCR 489 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 464 = 2010 (11 ) JT 173 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 359

AWARD MADE IN ADJOINING LANDS IS RELEVANT, INTEREST ON SOLATIUM AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION 2010 SC

JUSTICE DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE IN IYASAMY & ANR. .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION REPORTED IN 2010 (12) SCR 489, THERE IS ALSO OTHER GUIDANCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO DETERMINE THE VALUATION IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS AWARDS WITH RESPECT TO ACQUISITION OF ADJOINING LANDS. THESE AWARDS ARE IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR ARRIVING AT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND. ………………… AS REGARDS THE INTEREST ON SOLATIUM AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION, SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WAS CHALLENGED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, WAS PRONOUNCED PRIOR TO JUDGMENT IN SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA (2001) 7 SCC 211, AND THE INSTANT APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF SUNDER'S CASE WOULD ENTITLE THE APPELLANTS TO RECEIVE INTEREST ON SOLATIUM U/S. 23(2) AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION U/S. 23(1A) IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISION. ACCORDING TO GURPREET SINGH'S CASE SUCH INTEREST CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT IN SUNDER'S CASE I.E. 19.9.2001. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS CLAIMING INTEREST ON SOLATIUM SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SUCH INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 19.9.2001, NOT THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE SAME.

HIRABAI & ORS. .VS. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR. DOJ : 23/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCR 1051 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 492 = 2010 (10 ) JT 553 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 274

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL & ORS. DOJ : 21/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -PAYMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 (13 ) SCC 541 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 189

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. MAHESH SHARMA & ANR. DOJ : 21/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ORDER -SETTING ASIDE -PERMISSIBILITY - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCR 1002 = 2010 (9 ) SCC 782 = 2010 (10 ) JT 397 = 2010 (10 ) SCALE 84

PRALHAD & ORS. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER DOJ : 15/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ADDITIONAL BENEFITS -GRANT -PERMISSIBILITY - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCR 916 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 458 = 2010 (10 ) JT 428 = 2010 (9 ) SCALE 409

NAND KISHORE GUPTA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 08/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 3654 = 2010 (11 ) SCR 356 = 2010 (10 ) SCC 282 = 2010 (10 ) JT 521 = 2010 (9 ) SCALE 175

K.K.POONACHA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS DOJ : 07/09/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ACT -CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - CITATION(S) 2010 (10 ) SCR 1022 = 2010 (9 ) SCC 671 = 2010 (9 ) JT 517 = 2010 (9 ) SCALE 119

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF BDA ACT QUESTIONED BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN VAIN 2010 SC

JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI AND JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY IN K.K.POONACHA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS REPORTED IN 2010 (10) SCR 1022, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 CANNOT BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR VOID ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND DID NOT RECEIVE HIS ASSENT. A POST CONSTITUTION LAW IS VOID AB INITIO IF IT IS NOT WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE LEGISLATURE OR IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION. IF THE LAW IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE UNION OR STATE AND DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE DECLARED VOID ON THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATION OR SANCTION, IF ASSENT IS GIVEN IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 255 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IF POST-ENACTMENT ASSENT IS NECESSARY FOR MAKING THE LAW EFFECTIVE, THEN SUCH LAW CANNOT BE ENFORCED OR IMPLEMENTED TILL SUCH ASSENT IS GIVEN. IF A LAW IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE SAME DOES NOT BECOME VOID OR IS BLOTTED OUT OF THE STATUTE BOOK MERELY BECAUSE POST-ENACTMENT ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED. SUCH LAW REMAINS ON THE STATUTE BOOK BUT CANNOT BE ENFORCED TILL THE ASSENT IS GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT. ONCE THE ASSENT IS GIVEN, THE LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE. IF THE PROVISION REQUIRING PRE-ENACTMENT SANCTION OR POST-ENACTMENT ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT IS REPEALED, THEN THE LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE FROM THE DATE OF REPEAL AND SUCH LAW CANNOT BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND DID NOT RECEIVE HIS ASSENT.

SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR & ANR. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 30/08/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -PERSON -EXPRESSION -JOINT HINDU FAMILY - CITATION(S) 2010 (10 ) SCR 589 = 201 (9 ) SCC 252 = 2010 (9 ) JT 225 =

RAJINDER KISHAN GUPTA & ANR. .VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DOJ : 20/08/2010 JUDGEMENT TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -METRO RAILWAYS -DELHI - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 3831 = 2010 (10 ) SCR 172 = 2010 (9 ) SCC 46 = 2010 (9 ) JT 240 = 2010 (8 ) SCALE 377

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .VS. PRAN SUKH & ORS DOJ : 17/08/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP - CITATION(S) 2010 (11 ) SCC 175 = 2010 (9 ) SCALE 218

A. NATESAM PILLAI .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, TIRUCHY DOJ : 11/08/2010 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (10 ) SCR 1 = 2010 (9 ) SCC 118 = 2010 (9 ) JT 39 = 2010 (8 ) SCALE 152

CHATURBHUJA MODI & ORS .VS. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR DOJ : 11/08/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (9 ) SCR 849 = 2010 (12 ) SCC 234 = 2010 (8 ) SCALE 148

DAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI & ANR. .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. DOJ : 23/07/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -PERIOD -COMPUTATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 3006 = 2010 (8 ) SCR 575 = 2010 (7 ) SCC 705 = 2010 (7 ) JT 444 = 2010 (7 ) SCALE 232

MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. .VS. MATHIAS ORAM & ORS. DOJ : 19/07/2010 ORDER LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (8 ) SCR 750 = 2010 (11 ) SCC 269 = 2010 (7 ) JT 352 = 2010 (7 ) SCALE 186

LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMNR. & ANR .VS. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS. DOJ : 07/07/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM -LIABILITY - CITATION(S) 2010 (7 ) SCR 833 = 2010 (12 ) SCC 387 = 2010 (7 ) JT 475 = 2010 (6 ) SCALE 623

MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. .VS. UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. DOJ : 03/06/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -REVISIONAL AUTHORITY -STATE GOVERNMENT -POWER - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 2210 = 2010 (7 ) SCR 346 = 2010 (11 ) SCC 557 = 2010 (6 ) JT 41 = 2010 (6 ) SCALE 151

MAY GEORGE .VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR & ORS. DOJ : 25/05/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS -CHALLENGE -DELAY - CITATION(S) 2010 (7 ) SCR 204 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 98 = 2010 (5 ) JT 526 = 2010 (6 ) SCALE 71

BONDU RAMASWAMY .VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS DOJ : 05/05/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPULSORY ACQUISITION -BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ACT -VALIDITY - CITATION(S) 2010 (6 ) SCR 29 = 2010 (7 ) SCC 129 = 2010 (6 ) JT 57 = 2010 (5 ) SCALE 70

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. KARIGOWDA & ORS. DOJ : 26/04/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -CLAIM -COMPUTATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 2322 = 2010 (5 ) SCR 164 = 2010 (5 ) SCC 708 = 2010 (4 ) JT 421 = 2010 (4 ) SCALE 406

UDHO DASS .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 21/04/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2010 (8 ) SCR 900 = 2010 (12 ) SCC 51 = 2010 (9 ) SCALE 41

JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT LTD. & ORS .VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS DOJ : 05/04/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -RING ROAD -HYDERABAD -OBJECTION - CITATION(S) 2010 (4 ) SCR 75 = 2010 (5 ) SCC 590 = 2010 (3 ) JT 502 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 546

JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT LTD. & ORS .VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS DOJ : 05/04/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -RING ROAD -WATER BODIES -PROTECTION - CITATION(S) 2010 (4 ) SCR 75 = 2010 (5 ) SCC 590 = 2010 (3 ) JT 502 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 546

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS. COMMNR. .VS. VEER KUMAR JAIN & ORS. DOJ : 01/04/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -DENOTIFICATION -NATURAL JUSTICE -NON OBSERVATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 2153 = 2010 (4 ) SCR 371 = 2010 (5 ) SCC 791 = 2010 (4 ) JT 63 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 655

SAWARAN LATA ETC. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS DOJ : 01/04/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -DELAY AND LATCHES -NOTIFICATION -DECLARATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1664 = 2010 (4 ) SCR 40 = 2010 (4 ) SCC 532 = 2010 (3 ) JT 602 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 583

PREM CHAND & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 30/03/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -RATE -BENEFITS - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1308 = 2010 (3 ) SCR 1128 = 2010 (4 ) SCC 551 = 2010 (3 ) JT 365 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 440

G. PREMA .VS. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATTUR DOJ : 23/03/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LAND -MARKET PRICE - CITATION(S) 2010 (12 ) SCC 502 = 2010 (3 ) SCALE 181

U.O.I. & ORS. .VS. SENETH MUNDA & ORS. DOJ : 10/03/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -COMPENSATION -SUSTAINABILITY - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1752 = 2010 (3 ) SCC 673 = 2010 (2 ) JT 658 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 790

STANES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL .VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ( LAND ACQUISITION ) COIMBATORE T.N. DOJ : 09/03/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -FIXATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1323 = 2010 (4 ) SCC 565 = 2010 (3 ) JT 489 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 774

THAKUR KULDEEP SINGH (D) THR. L.R. & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 08/03/2010 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -CIRCLE RATES - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1272 = 2010 (3 ) SCR 141 = 2010 (3 ) SCC 794 = 2010 (2 ) JT 521 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 705

SAGUNTHALA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS .VS. SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (L.A) & ORS DOJ : 24/02/2010 JUDGEMENT - LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 984 = 2010 (3 ) SCR 50 = 2010 (3 ) SCC 661 = 2010 (2 ) JT 405 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 620

HARI RAM & ANR. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 11/02/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -WITHDRAWAL -DENIAL -EQUALITY CLAUSE - CITATION(S) 2010 (2 ) SCR 756 = 2010 (3 ) SCC 621 = 2010 (2 ) JT 235 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 339

OM PRAKASH .VS. UOI & ORS DOJ : 08/02/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1068 = 2010 (2 ) SCR 447 = 2010 (4 ) SCC 17 = 2010 (2 ) JT 91 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 153

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD .VS. L. CHANDRASEKARAN & ORS. DOJ : 29/01/2010 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DECLARATION -PUBLICATION - CITATION(S) 2010 (2 ) SCC 786 = 2010 (1 ) JT 647 = 2010 (1 ) SCALE 701

HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH DOJ : 29/01/2010 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -VALUATION -BELTING METHOD - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1754 = 2010 (2 ) SCR 201 = 2010 (11 ) SCC 581 = 2010 (2 ) JT 502 = 2010 (2 ) SCALE 503

R. KOLANDAIVELU & ORS. .VS. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. DOJ : 11/12/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -DATE OF DECLARATION -COMPUTATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 413 = 2009 (16 ) SCR 381 = 2010 (2 ) SCC 97 = 2009 (15 ) JT 406 = 2009 (14 ) SCALE 524

KAMRUL ISAM ALVI .VS. STATE OF M.P. DOJ : 04/11/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST - CITATION(S) 2009 SCR 689 = 2009 (14 ) JT 132 = 2009 (13 ) SCALE 540

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. .VS. SHAKUNTLA & ORS. DOJ : 22/10/2009 JUDGEMENT- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 468 = 2009 (15 ) SCR 413 = 2010 (12 ) SCC 448 = 2009 (13 ) JT 498 = 2009 (13 ) SCALE 410

SUBH RAM & ORS. .VS. HARYANA STATE & ANR. DOJ : 20/10/2009 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2009 (15 ) SCR 287 = 2010 (1 ) SCC 444 = 2009 (14 ) JT 115 = 2009 (13 ) SCALE 528

UDEY CHAND .VS. SURAT SINGH & ANR DOJ : 09/10/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -STATEMENT -OBJECTS & REASONS -CONSTITUTIONALITY - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2939 = 2009 (15 ) SCR 147 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 170 = 2009 (13 ) JT 355 = 2009 (13 ) SCALE 215

SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY NEW DELHI .VS. LT. GOVERNOR GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI & ORS. DOJ : 15/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -RELEASE OF LAND -AWARD - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1143 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 507 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 501 = 2009 (12 ) JT 324 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 550

SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY NEW DELHI .VS. LT. GOVERNOR GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI & ORS. DOJ : 15/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -DDA -NOTIFICATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 1143 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 507 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 501 = 2009 (12 ) JT 324 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 550

SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BILHONGAL .VS. QUASAMI JNAB AJMATALLA SALAMULLA & ANR DOJ : 11/09/2009 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -APPEAL -RECORDING OF REASONS -REMITTANCES - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2843 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 399 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 219 = 2009 (14 ) JT 310 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 564

TIKA RAM & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 09/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -ACT -SECTION -CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - CITATION(S) 2009 (14 ) SCR 905 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 689 = 2009 (12 ) JT 1 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 349

TIKA RAM & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 09/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -AMENDING ACT -VALIDITY -U P - CITATION(S) 2009 (14 ) SCR 905 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 689 = 2009 (12 ) JT 1 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 349

CHARAN DAS (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. H.P. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. DOJ : 07/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2506 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 163 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 398 = 2009 (11 ) JT 692 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 293

CHARAN DAS (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. H.P. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. DOJ : 07/09/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -ASSESSMENT - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2506 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 163 = 2010 (13 ) SCC 398 = 2009 (11 ) JT 692 = 2009 (12 ) SCALE 293

SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 25/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -RELEASE OF LAND - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 433 = 2009 (13 ) SCR 710 = 2009 (15 ) SCC 705 = 2009 (11 ) JT 311 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 731

SAIBANNA 'DEAD' BY LRS .VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 19/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEVELOPMENT CHARGES -DEDUCTION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1950 = 2009 (13 ) SCR 401 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 409 = 2009 (10 ) JT 587 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 531

VIJAY NARAYAN THATTE & ORS .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS DOJ : 18/08/2009 ORDER LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -TIME PERIOD -MANDATORY PROVISION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1952 = 2009 (14 ) SCR 891 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 92 = 2009 (15 ) JT 92 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 525

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 18/08/2009 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -APPLICATION -RECALL - CITATION(S) 2009 (13 ) SCALE 82

KARAM SINGH (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 12/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2009 (9 ) SCC 800 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 666

LAL CHAND .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 12/08/2009 JUDGEMENT - LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 170 = 2009 (13 ) SCR 622 = 2009 (15 ) SCC 769 = 2009 (11 ) JT 490 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 627

S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS. .VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUNELVELI TAMIL NADU DOJ : 07/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTICE -LIFE ESTATE HOLDERS - CITATION(S) 2009 (12 ) SCR 1215 = 2009 (10 ) SCC 664 = 2009 (12 ) JT 485 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 658

ATTAR SINGH & ANR. .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 04/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -MARKET VALUE - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2089 = 2009 (12 ) SCR 315 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 289 = 2009 (11 ) JT 129 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 57

MAHARUNNISA & ANR. .VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER L.A.O. BIJAPUR DOJ : 04/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -APPEAL -PENDENCY - -ENHANCEMENT -ENTITLEMENT CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2104 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 750 = 2009 (10 ) SCALE 616

BHAGAT SINGH & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 04/08/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -CATEGORIZATION -MARKET VALUE - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 99 = 2009 (12 ) SCR 529 = 2009 (9 ) SCC 427 = 2009 (12 ) JT 421 = 2009 (11 ) SCALE 251

MUTHYAM AGAIAH GOUD .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 04/08/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -RECORDS -SUBSTITUTION -LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CITATION(S) 2009 (17 ) SCC 623 = 2009 (10 ) SCALE 587

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. .VS. S.U.T.N.I SANGAM & ORS. DOJ : 29/07/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -WRIT PROCEEDINGS -MAINTAINABILITY CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 112 = 2009 (12 ) SCR 929 = 2009 (16 ) SCC 1 = 2009 (10 ) JT 509 = 2009 (10 ) SCALE 416

DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION GUJARAT & ANR. .VS. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. DOJ : 29/07/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2566 = 2009 (11 ) SCR 523 = 2009 (15 ) SCC 125 = 2009 (10 ) JT 474 = 2009 (10 ) SCALE 476

K. SHARADARANI SRINIVAS .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 14/07/2009 ORDER- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2009 (9 ) SCALE 608

MANAGER, MATHA NAGAR SCHOOL .VS. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. DOJ : 09/07/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -BENEFICIARY -LIABILITY - CITATION(S) 2010 AIR 106 = 2010 (12 ) SCC 555 = 2009 (9 ) SCALE 442

CHANDRASHEKHAR & ORS .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 08/07/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION -COURT FEE - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 3012 = 2009 (10 ) SCR 505 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 441 = 2009 (9 ) JT 1 = 2009 (9 ) SCALE 434

GRAM PANCHAYAT UGRA KHERI .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DOJ : 07/07/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REMITTANCES -HIGH COURTS - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1394 = 2009 (9 ) SCALE 260

MAHENDER PAL & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 15/05/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -URGENCY -ROAD -CONSTRUCTION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 3220 = 2009 (9 ) SCR 418 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 281 = 2009 (13 ) JT 670 = 2009 (8 ) SCALE 485

UNION OF IINDIA .VS. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 12/05/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1422 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 375 = 2009 (11 ) JT 134 = 2009 (8 ) SCALE 201

PRANITA POWERLOOM COOP. SOC. LTD. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & ORS. DOJ : 15/04/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT -PROPOSAL -CANCELLATION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1666 = 2009 (6 ) SCR 891 = 2009 (12 ) SCC 652 = 2009 (6 ) JT 242 = 2009 (6 ) SCALE 209

NAVANATH & ORS. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 15/04/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1540 = 2009 (6 ) SCR 632 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 480 = 2009 (6 ) JT 386 = 2009 (5 ) SCALE 575

PRANITA POWERLOOM COOP. SOC. LTD. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & ORS. DOJ : 15/04/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE -RESERVATION -PROCEDURE - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1666 = 2009 (6 ) SCR 891 = 2009 (12 ) SCC 652 = 2009 (6 ) JT 242 = 2009 (6 ) SCALE 209

KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, ETC. .VS. K.S. GANGADHARAPPA & ANR. ETC. DOJ : 15/04/2009 JUDGEMENT - LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2009 (6 ) SCR 250 = 2009 (11 ) SCC 164 = 2009 (7 ) JT 7 = 2009 (6 ) SCALE 1

MOHAMMAD RAOFUDDIN .VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 13/04/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -FIXATION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2244 = 2009 (5 ) SCR 864 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 367 = 2009 (5 ) JT 439 = 2009 (5 ) SCALE 381

D.D.A. .VS. MAHENDER SINGH AND ANR. DOJ : 20/03/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -PAYMENT - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 3270 = 2009 (4 ) SCR 788 = 2009 (5 ) SCC 339 = 2009 (4 ) JT 208 = 2009 (4 ) SCALE 363

C.R. NAGARAJA SHETTY .VS. SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ESTATE OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 24/02/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT - CITATION(S) 2009 (2 ) SCR 1092 = 2009 (11 ) SCC 75 = 2009 (3 ) JT 9 = 2009 (3 ) SCALE 359

CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 18/02/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -DENOTIFICATION -PROCEDURE -NATURAL JUSTICE - CITATION(S) 2009 (2 ) SCR 630 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 253 = 2009 (3 ) JT 16 = 2009 (2 ) SCALE 740

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. DOJ : 13/02/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2209 = 2009 (2 ) SCR 467 = 2009 (4 ) SCC 435 = 2009 (2 ) JT 417 = 2009 (2 ) SCALE 611

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER U K PROJECT .VS. MAHABOB & ANR DOJ : 09/02/2009 ORDER LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -PROMPT DISBURSEMENT CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1761 = 2009 (2 ) SCR 881 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 54 = 2009 (7 ) JT 210 = 2009 (3 ) SCALE 263

FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT NTPC LTD. ETC. .VS. OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. DOJ : 05/02/2009 JUDGEMENT LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -FACTORS CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 2001 = 2009 (1 ) SCR 912 = 2009 (4 ) SCC 719 = 2009 (4 ) JT 461 = 2009 (2 ) SCALE 219

T.S. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY .VS. CM, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ANR. DOJ : 22/01/2009 JUDGEMENT, LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION , CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1870 = 2009 (14 ) SCC 334 = 2009 (4 ) JT 363 = 2009 (3 ) SCALE 333

FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD. AND ANOTHER .VS. MINGUEL MARTINS AND OTHERS DOJ : 20/01/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE - CITATION(S) 2009 (3 ) SCR 1 = 2009 (3 ) SCC 571 = 2009 (1 ) JT 470 = 2009 (1 ) SCALE 758

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-L.A.O. .VS. SHAIK AZAM SAHEB ETC. ETC. DOJ : 13/01/2009 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION -FACTORS - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1914 = 2009 (1 ) SCR 289 = 2009 (4 ) SCC 395 = 2009 (3 ) JT 456 = 2009 (1 ) SCALE 545

DHARAM PAL .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 15/12/2008 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE -INCLUSION - CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 1580 = 2008 (17 ) SCR 564 = 2009 (2 ) SCC 397 = 2008 (13 ) JT 7 = 2009 (1 ) SCALE 151

MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO (DEAD) TR. LRS. .VS. GODHAVARI CO-OP MILK P. UNION LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/2008 JUDGEMENT- LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION - CITATION(S) 2008 (16 ) SCR 1136 = 2009 (1 ) SCC 348 = 2008 (13 ) JT 284 = 2008 (15 ) SCALE 587

PRAKASH R. GUPTA .VS. LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. DOJ : 02/12/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -TOWN PLANNING -NON ACQUISITION -RESERVATION
CITATION(S) 2008 (16 ) SCR 1067 = 2009 (1 ) SCC 514 = 2009 (1 ) JT 147 = 2008 (16 ) SCALE 120

PANDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. .VS. EXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT & ANR. DOJ : 03/11/2008 JUDGEMENT
LIMITATION -CONDONATION OF DELAY -LAND ACQUISITION -PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2008 (15 ) SCR 135 = 2008 (17 ) SCC 448 = 2008 (11 ) JT 596 = 2008 (13 ) SCALE 773

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA .VS. YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO & ORS. DOJ : 17/09/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 521 = 2008 (13 ) SCR 600 = 2008 (17 ) SCC 188 = 2008 (10 ) JT 305 = 2008 (12 ) SCALE 545

COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR. .VS. JASWANT SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 15/09/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -EXECUTING COURT
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 653 = 2008 (13 ) SCR 525 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 745 = 2008 (12 ) SCALE 495

COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR. .VS. JASWANT SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 15/09/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -EXECUTING COURT -POWERS -AWARD
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 653 = 2008 (13 ) SCR 525 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 745 = 2008 (12 ) SCALE 495

SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS .VS. DIST. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS. DOJ : 05/09/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -DECLARATION -CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
CITATION(S) 2008 (13 ) SCR 126 = 2008 (9 ) SCC 552 = 2008 (9 ) JT 622 = 2008 (12 ) SCALE 367

T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. .VS. T.N. HOUSING BOARD & ORS. DOJ : 07/08/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -QUASHING NOTIFICATION -NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE -ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 706 = 2008 (11 ) SCR 1016 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 525 = 2008 (9 ) JT 8 = 2008 (11 ) SCALE 180

T.R. BOOPALAN & ORS. .VS. T.N. HOUSING BOARD & ORS. DOJ : 07/08/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE -WRIT PETITION
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 706 = 2008 (11 ) SCR 1016 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 525 = 2008 (9 ) JT 8 = 2008 (11 ) SCALE 180

GENERAL MANAGER OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. ONGC .VS. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL & ANR. DOJ : 31/07/2008 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 465 = 2008 (11 ) SCR 927 = 2008 (14 ) SCC 745 = 2008 (9 ) JT 480 = 2008 (11 ) SCALE 637

MAHADEVAPPA LACHAPPA KINAGI AND ORS. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. DOJ : 30/07/2008 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -UNFORESEEN EMERGENCY -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 477 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 418 = 2008 (8 ) JT 581 = 2008 (11 ) SCALE 25

MAHADEVAPPA LACHAPPA KINAGI AND ORS. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. DOJ : 30/07/2008 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PROCEDURE -PUBLIC PURPOSE -REHABILITATION
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 477 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 418 = 2008 (8 ) JT 581 = 2008 (11 ) SCALE 25

SRI V. PRABHAKAR & ORS. .VS. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE, KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 28/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -NOTIFICATION -MALA FIDE
CITATION(S) 2008 (8 ) SCC 337 = 2008 (8 ) JT 462 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 520

MEERA SAHNI .VS. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. DOJ : 15/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PROCEEDINGS -VALIDITY
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 760 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 1012 = 2008 (9 ) SCC 177 = 2008 (8 ) JT 284 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 414

MEERA SAHNI .VS. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. DOJ : 15/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -NOTIFICATION -LEGALITY
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 760 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 1012 = 2008 (9 ) SCC 177 = 2008 (8 ) JT 284 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 414

JEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 14/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REVISION -REMITTED BACK TO HIGH COURT -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 612 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 971 = 2008 (8 ) SCC 296 = 2008 (8 ) JT 633 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 212

JEEWAN DHAR JAIN (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DOJ : 14/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2009 AIR 612 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 971 = 2008 (8 ) SCC 296 = 2008 (8 ) JT 633 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 212

KANTA DEVI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DOJ : 08/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION -DEVELOPMENT CHARGES -KURUKSHETRA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 3107 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 367 = 2008 (15 ) SCC 201 = 2008 (8 ) JT 102 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 242

KANTA DEVI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DOJ : 08/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -DEDUCTION
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 3107 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 367 = 2008 (15 ) SCC 201 = 2008 (8 ) JT 102 = 2008 (10 ) SCALE 242

C.E.S.C. LIMITED .VS. SANDHYA RANI BARIK AND ORS. DOJ : 07/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 2873 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 137 = 2008 (17 ) SCC 436 = 2008 (7 ) JT 485 = 2008 (9 ) SCALE 647

C.E.S.C. LIMITED .VS. SANDHYA RANI BARIK AND ORS. DOJ : 07/07/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ASSESSMENT -FIXED PRICE -WEST BENGAL
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 2873 = 2008 (10 ) SCR 137 = 2008 (17 ) SCC 436 = 2008 (7 ) JT 485 = 2008 (9 ) SCALE 647

ILLA ROY CHOWDHURY .VS. SHYAMALI DAS & ORS. DOJ : 16/05/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -CONDITIONAL ORDER -CALCUTTA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 2903 = 2008 (9 ) SCR 239 = 2008 (14 ) SCC 790 = 2008 (11 ) JT 39 = 2008 (8 ) SCALE 371

SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLAVE & ANR. .VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. DOJ : 12/05/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MASTER PLAN -U.P.
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 2284 = 2008 (8 ) SCR 273 = 2008 (14 ) SCC 716 = 2008 (7 ) JT 120 = 2008 (8 ) SCALE 322

SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLAVE & ANR. .VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. DOJ : 12/05/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ACQUISITION -MASTER PLAN -ALLAHABAD
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 2284 = 2008 (8 ) SCR 273 = 2008 (14 ) SCC 716 = 2008 (7 ) JT 120 = 2008 (8 ) SCALE 322

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. ETC. DOJ : 08/05/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION -ASSESSMENT -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2008 (11 ) SCC 65 = 2008 (6 ) JT 659 = 2008 (8 ) SCALE 521

LEELAWATI AGARWAL W/O SH. SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL .VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. DOJ : 04/04/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -CLAIM -JHARKHAND
CITATION(S) 2008 (5 ) SCR 1160 = 2008 (15 ) SCC 464 = 2008 (4 ) JT 624 = 2008 (6 ) SCALE 272

KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. SUMITRA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. DOJ : 24/03/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -COMPENSATION -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 1981 = 2008 (5 ) SCR 313 = 2008 (12 ) SCC 423 = 2008 (4 ) SCALE 642

BIHAR FINANCE SERVICE H.C. COOP. SOC. LTD. .VS. GAUTAM GOSWAMI & ORS. DOJ : 05/03/2008 JUDGEMENT
CONTEMPT OF COURT -JURISDICTION -LAND ACQUISITION -PATNA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 1975 = 2008 (3 ) SCR 1137 = 2008 (5 ) SCC 339 = 2008 (4 ) JT 374 = 2008 (4 ) SCALE 306

SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT LTD & ANR .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS DOJ : 07/02/2008 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -URBAN DEVELOPMENT -DELAY AND LATCHES -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 1494 = 2008 (2 ) SCR 521 = 2008 (4 ) SCC 695 = 2008 (2 ) JT 280 = 2008 (2 ) SCALE 271

ATMA SINGH (DIED) THROUGH LRS & ORS .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR DOJ : 07/12/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 709 = 2007 (12 ) SCR 1120 = 2008 (2 ) SCC 568 = 2007 (13 ) JT 473 = 2007 (14 ) SCALE 109

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .VS. RANCHOD & ORS DOJ : 04/12/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -M.P.
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 938 = 2007 (12 ) SCR 873 = 2007 (14 ) SCC 326 = 2007 (13 ) SCALE 641

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS DOJ : 02/11/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -FIXATION
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 399 = 2007 (11 ) SCR 921 = 2008 (1 ) SCC 554 = 2007 (12 ) JT 489 = 2007 (12 ) SCALE 685

Y N GANGADHARA SETTY & ORS .VS. JAYA PRAKASH REDDY, MD KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION DOJ : 02/11/2007 JUDGEMENT
CONTEMPT OF COURT -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPANY
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 640 = 2007 (14 ) SCC 434 = 2007 (12 ) SCALE 680

DEVINDER SINGH & ORS .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS DOJ : 12/10/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2008 AIR 261 = 2007 (11 ) SCR 475 = 2008 (1 ) SCC 728 = 2007 (12 ) JT 256 = 2007 (12 ) SCALE 496

M/S GIRNAR TRADERS .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS DOJ : 27/08/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -RESERVATION -STATE -POWER
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 3180 = 2007 (9 ) SCR 383 = 2007 (7 ) SCC 555 = 2007 (10 ) SCALE 391

RAJ KUMAR & ORS .VS. HARYANA STATE & ORS DOJ : 27/08/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -FACTORS
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 3124 = 2007 (9 ) SCR 455 = 2007 (7 ) SCC 609 = 2007 (10 ) JT 454 = 2007 (10 ) SCALE 375

GAFAR & ORS .VS. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR DOJ : 17/08/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SALE INSTANCES -REASONS
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1628 = 2007 (9 ) SCR 32 = 2007 (7 ) SCC 614 = 2007 (10 ) JT 196 = 2007 (10 ) SCALE 89

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD .VS. LIVISHA ETC ETC DOJ : 18/05/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ELECTRICITY LAW -POST & TELEGRAPH -KERALA
CITATION(S) 2007 (7 ) SCR 356 = 2007 (6 ) SCC 792 = 2007 (8 ) SCALE 235

MADISHETTI BALA RAMUL (D) BY LRS .VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 17/05/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -A.P.
CITATION(S) 2007 (7 ) SCR 222 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 650 = 2007 (8 ) JT 180 = 2007 (8 ) SCALE 184

TALSON REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 02/05/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MSEB -ENQUIRY -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1715 = 2007 (13 ) SCC 186 = 2007 (10 ) JT 232 = 2007 (6 ) SCALE 478

LOK SEWA SHIKSHAN MANDAL .VS. A R MUNDHADA CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS DOJ : 09/04/2007 JUDGEMENT
CIVIL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1656 = 2007 (4 ) SCR 1007 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 779 = 2007 (5 ) JT 383 = 2007 (5 ) SCALE 618

RAVI KHULLAR AND ANOTHER .VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DOJ : 30/03/2007 JUDGEMENT
CIVIL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 2334 = 2007 (4 ) SCR 598 = 2007 (5 ) SCC 231 = 2007 (6 ) JT 25 = 2007 (5 ) SCALE 236

KUNWAR PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 26/03/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION -PUBLICATION OF DECLARATION -ALLAHABAD
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1675 = 2007 (4 ) SCR 409 = 2007 (5 ) SCC 85 = 2007 (5 ) JT 1 = 2007 (5 ) SCALE 122

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD .VS. GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES & ANR DOJ : 15/03/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -FARINGATI -A P
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1733 = 2007 (3 ) SCR 1143 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 242 = 2007 (8 ) JT 238 = 2007 (4 ) SCALE 400

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD .VS. KEERAVANI AMMAL & ORS DOJ : 15/03/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WRIT -HOUSING BOARD -MADRAS
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1691 = 2007 (3 ) SCR 1062 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 255 = 2007 (6 ) JT 602 = 2007 (4 ) SCALE 423

MOHAN AND ANR .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS DOJ : 13/03/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 2625 = 2007 (3 ) SCR 936 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 431 = 2007 (4 ) SCALE 335

RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS .VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS DOJ : 23/02/2007 JUDGEMENT
CONSTITUTION -ARTICLE 226 -WRIT -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2007 (3 ) SCR 40 = 2007 (12 ) SCC 144 = 2007 (3 ) SCALE 529

GENERAL MANAGER M/S HUTTI GOLD MINES CO. .VS. SHIVAPPA (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. DOJ : 19/02/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 2488 = 2007 (2 ) SCR 804 = 2007 (15 ) SCC 317 = 2007 (3 ) SCALE 286

H.M.T. LTD. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HRM) & ANR. .VS. MUDAPPA & ORS. DOJ : 08/02/2007 JUDGEMENT
CONSTITUTION -LAND ACQUISITION -INDUSTRIAL AREA -WRIT
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1106 = 2007 (2 ) SCR 363 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 768 = 2007 (3 ) JT 112 = 2007 (2 ) SCALE 573

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER A P .VS. KAMADANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO & ANR DOJ : 07/02/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AGRICULTURAL LAND -COMPENSATION -COST OF CULTIVATION
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1142 = 2007 (2 ) SCR 327 = 2007 (3 ) SCC 526 = 2007 (8 ) JT 544 = 2007 (2 ) SCALE 554

VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILIDNG CO-OP SOCIETY BY ITS SECRETARY .VS. V CHANDRAPPA & ORS DOJ : 02/02/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DELAY -NAGAVARA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 1151 = 2007 (2 ) SCR 277 = 2007 (9 ) SCC 304 = 2007 (3 ) JT 181 = 2007 (2 ) SCALE 519

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR .VS. STATE OF U.P. THR COLLECCTOR & ANR DOJ : 05/01/2007 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -COMPENSATION -INJUNCTIONS
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 917 = 2007 (1 ) SCR 209 = 2007 (2 ) SCC 461 = 2007 (3 ) JT 244 = 2007 (2 ) SCALE 356

U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .VS. RISHABH ISPAT LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 15/12/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ASSESSMENT -ALLAHABAD
CITATION(S) 2006 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 1129 = 2007 (2 ) SCC 248 = 2007 (2 ) JT 282 = 2006 (13 ) SCALE 626

PATEL JOITARAM KALIDAS & ORS. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 13/12/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -MARKET VALUE -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 2006 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 922 = 2007 (2 ) SCC 341 = 2007 (1 ) JT 424 = 2006 (13 ) SCALE 420

DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION .VS. MALLA ATCHINAIDU & ORS. DOJ : 12/12/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -CLAIM -TREES -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 740 = 2006 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 885 = 2006 (12 ) SCC 87 = 2007 (3 ) JT 18 = 2006 (14 ) SCALE 1

P.K. SREEKANTAN & ORS .VS. P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR & ORS DOJ : 04/12/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -JURISDICTION -KERALA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 516 = 2006 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 20 = 2006 (13 ) SCC 574 = 2006 (13 ) SCALE 289

DAULAT SINGH SURANA & ORS. .VS. FIRST LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR & ORS. DOJ : 13/11/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -VALIDITY -WB
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 471 = 2006 (8 ) SUPPL. SCR 1076 = 2007 (1 ) SCC 641 = 2007 (1 ) JT 24 = 2006 (11 ) SCALE 482

DAULAT SINGH SURANA & ORS. .VS. FIRST LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR & ORS. DOJ : 13/11/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 471 = 2006 (8 ) SUPPL. SCR 1076 = 2007 (1 ) SCC 641 = 2007 (1 ) JT 24 = 2006 (11 ) SCALE 482

STATE OF A.P. .VS. V. SARMA RAO & ORS. DOJ : 10/11/2006 JUDGEMENT
CRIMINAL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC SERVANT -PROSECUTION
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 137 = 2006 (8 ) SUPPL. SCR 859 = 2007 (2 ) SCC 159 = 2006 (11 ) SCALE 401
LARGE SCALE FRAUD IN AWARDING COMPENSATION SECTION 340 CRPC ENQUIRY ESSENTIAL 2006 SC
JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI IN THE CASE OF STATE OF A.P. .VS. V. SARMA RAO & ORS. REPORTED IN AIR 2007 SC 137 “ LANDS SITUATED IN PISINIKADA VILLAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF VISHAKHAPATNAM WERE ACQUIRED BY THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOR PROVIDING HOUSE-SITES TO THE WEAKER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY. AWARDS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ACQUISITION WERE MADE BY THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR. REFERENCE THEREAGAINST WAS MADE TO THE CIVIL COURT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. A LARGE SCALE FRAUD, ALLEGEDLY, TOOK PLACE IN AWARDING COMPENSATION WHEREIN THE SUB-ORDINATE JUDGE, ANAKAPALLE, HIS STAFF, THE ADVOCATES OF THE CLAIMANTS, THE ADVOCATES APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND OTHER OFFICIALS WERE SAID TO BE INVOLVED. UPON OBTAINING REQUISITE PERMISSION FROM THE HIGH COURT, THE CBCID REGISTERED A CASE AND INVESTIGATION THEREINTO WAS CARRIED ON. IN ITS REPORT DATED 4.5.1998, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CID, HYDERABAD INDICATED ABOUT A LARGE SCALE CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS. ALLEGATIONS MADE AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED CAME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFENCES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AS A RESULT THEREOF AN INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 340 THEREOF WAS IMPERATIVE. …………….. THIS COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION WITH REFERENCE TO A SPECIAL STATUTE LIKE THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE CIVIL COURTS EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF A SUIT FILED BEFORE IT, THEY DO SO UNDER VARIOUS SPECIAL STATUTES. THE HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 195 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, THEREFORE, WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED. WE MAY IMMEDIATELY NOTICE THAT THE ACT MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FILING A COMPLAINT BY A PUBLIC SERVANT AND A COURT. WHEREAS CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 195 CONTEMPLATES ADMINISTRATIVE SUBORDINATION, CLAUSE (B) CONTEMPLATES JUDICIAL SUBORDINATION. EACH EXPRESSION USED IN THE CODE, THEREFORE, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD UPON READING THE PROVISIONS THEREOF IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT IN ISOLATION.”

SHYAMALI DAS .VS. ILLA CHOWDHRY & ORS. DOJ : 01/11/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PREFERENCE -CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING ESTATE -CALCUTTA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 215 = 2006 (8 ) SUPPL. SCR 310 = 2006 (12 ) SCC 300 = 2006 (10 ) JT 153 = 2006 (11 ) SCALE 267

GURPREET SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 19/10/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -EXECUTION OF AWARD DECREE -RULE OF APPROPRIATIONS -LIABILITY TO PAY
CITATION(S) 2006 (7 ) SUPPL. SCR 422 = 2006 (8 ) SCC 457 = 2006 (10 ) SCALE 393

MAHESH LALL SEAL & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 01/09/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION -CALCUTTA
CITATION(S) 2007 AIR 357 = 2006 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 696 = 2006 (10 ) SCC 227 = 2006 (8 ) JT 434 = 2006 (8 ) SCALE 768

GANPATIBAI & ANR. .VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. DOJ : 23/08/2006 JUDGEMENT
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -DELAY AND LATCHES -LAND ACQUISITION -M P
CITATION(S) 2006 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 215 = 2006 (7 ) SCC 508 =

P. NARAYANAPPA & ANR. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 18/08/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT -NOTIFICATION -PURPOSE
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 3001 = 2006 (4 ) SUPPL. SCR 716 = 2006 (7 ) SCC 578 = 2006 (8 ) JT 185 = 2006 (8 ) SCALE 199

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS .VS. GOSIKHURD PRAKALPGRAST KAL SAMITI & ORS DOJ : 27/07/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 2006 (10 ) SCC 522 = 2006 (8 ) SCALE 46

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. HARCHAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. DOJ : 23/05/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMPUTATION -COMPARABLE SALE METHOD
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 2122 = 2006 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 868 = 2006 (9 ) SCC 723 = 2006 (6 ) SCALE 271

OM PRAKASH & ORS. .VS. DIL BAHAR & ORS. DOJ : 19/05/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMPROMISE -NEW DELHI
CITATION(S) 2006 (9 ) SCC 695 = 2006 (6 ) SCALE 122

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD .VS. SRI C. KENCHAPPA & ORS. DOJ : 12/05/2006 JUDGEMENT
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -ECOLOGICAL BALANCE -LAND ACQUISITION -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 2038 = 2006 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 362 = 2006 (6 ) SCC 371 = 2006 (5 ) JT 556 = 2006 (6 ) SCALE 1

A.P. NAYAR & ORS. .VS. REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOP. HOUSE BLDG. SOC. LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 24/04/2006 JUDGEMENT
EVACUEE PROPERTY -EVACUE INTEREST -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2006 (9 ) SCC 453 = 2006 (4 ) SCALE 503

CHAIRMAN NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. .VS. C. GOVINDA PADAYACHI & ANR. DOJ : 03/04/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AMOUNT DEPOSITED -INTEREST -ENTITLEMENT
CITATION(S) 2006 (3 ) SCR 701 = 2006 (9 ) SCC 725 = 2006 (4 ) SCALE 33

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .VS. MEWA SINGH DOJ : 23/03/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -URBAN DEVELOPMENT -COSHARER -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 3491 = 2006 (3 ) SCR 216 = 2006 (9 ) SCC 276 = 2006 (44 ) JT 239 = 2006 (3 ) SCALE 344

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. .VS. KASHI PRASAD DWIVEDI & ORS. DOJ : 06/03/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ALLAHABAD
CITATION(S) 2007 (15 ) SCC 205 = 2006 (3 ) SCALE 167

CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSN .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND TEHSILDAR DOJ : 02/03/2006 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -CERTIFIED COPY -EVIDENCE -ACCEPTANCE
CITATION(S) 2006 (9 ) SCC 676 =

U.O.I. .VS. MUNISHI RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. DOJ : 01/03/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -APPLICATION
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 1716 = 2006 (2 ) SCR 816 = 2006 (4 ) SCC 538 = 2006 (3 ) SCALE 225

RISHI PAL SINGH & ORS. .VS. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. DOJ : 24/02/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE COURT -FINDING -UPSETTING
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 3572 = 2006 (2 ) SCR 508 = 2006 (3 ) SCC 205 = 2006 (3 ) JT 515 = 2006 (2 ) SCALE 535

BAILAMMA @ DODDABAILAMMA (DEAD) & ORS. .VS. POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS. DOJ : 31/01/2006 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2006 AIR 1132 = 2006 (2 ) SCR 984 = 2006 (2 ) SCC 416 = 2006 (2 ) JT 108 = 2006 (1 ) SCALE 62

BIRBAL .VS. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. DOJ : 25/01/2006 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -GAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 2006 (10 ) SCC 305 =

COMPETENT AUTHORITY .VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY & ORS. DOJ : 23/11/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -HIGHWAYS
CITATION(S) 2005 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 421 = 2005 (13 ) SCC 477 = 2005 (10 ) JT 50 = 2005 (9 ) SCALE 493

COMPETENT AUTHORITY .VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY & ORS. DOJ : 23/11/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -ILLEGALITY -QUASHING
CITATION(S) 2005 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 421 = 2005 (13 ) SCC 477 = 2005 (10 ) JT 50 = 2005 (9 ) SCALE 493

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS .VS. R HANUMAIAH & ORS DOJ : 03/10/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -POWER -BANGALORE
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 3631 = 2005 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 901 = 2005 (12 ) SCC 508 = 2005 (12 ) JT 64 = 2005 (8 ) SCALE 80

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. .VS. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI & ORS. DOJ : 20/09/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ACQUISITION OF PROCESS -JUDICIAL REVIEW
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 3520 = 2005 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 388 = 2005 (7 ) SCC 627 = 2005 (8 ) JT 470 = 2005 (7 ) SCALE 386

DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER .VS. FAIZUNNISA AND ORS DOJ : 14/09/2005 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -MADRAS
CITATION(S) 2006 (9 ) SCC 162 =

U.O.I. & ORS. .VS. PRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. DOJ : 07/09/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -RES JUDICATA
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 3708 = 2005 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 48 = 2005 (12 ) SCC 1 = 2005 (8 ) JT 203 = 2005 (7 ) SCALE 187

RANVIR SINGH & ANR .VS. UNION OF INDIA DOJ : 07/09/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -SALE INSTANCES -CONSIDERATION
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 3467 = 2005 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 31 = 2005 (12 ) SCC 59 = 2005 (8 ) JT 253 = 2005 (7 ) SCALE 238

MAHADEO BAJIRAO PATIL .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 06/09/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION -CONDONATION OF DELAY -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 2005 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 1182 = 2005 (7 ) SCC 440 = 2005 (8 ) JT 150 = 2005 (7 ) SCALE 147

PARSOTTAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL & ORS. .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRU DEPUTY COLLECTOR MODASA & ANR. DOJ : 06/09/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -LIMITATION -AWARD
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 3464 = 2005 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 1192 = 2005 (7 ) SCC 431 = 2005 (8 ) JT 146 = 2005 (7 ) SCALE 143

G.M. O.N.G.C. LTD. .VS. SENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL & ORS. DOJ : 08/08/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2005 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 448 = 2005 (6 ) SCC 454 = 2005 (7 ) JT 465 = 2005 (6 ) SCALE 418

INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD. & ANR .VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GREATER BOMBAY & ANR. DOJ : 05/08/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -BUILDING -MEANING -TEST OF INDEPENDENCE & PERMANENCE
CITATION(S) 200 AIR 3802 = 2005 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 372 = 2005 (6 ) SCC 417 = 2005 (7 ) JT 168 = 2005 (6 ) SCALE 165

R.P. SINGH .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 04/08/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AGRICULTURAL LAND -COMPENSATION -VALUATION
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 4189 = 2005 (7 ) SCC 24 = 2005 (12 ) JT 24 = 2005 (6 ) SCALE 80

GURPREET SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 21/07/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 2005 (13 ) SCC 223 = 2006 (3 ) SCALE 301

NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS COAL INDIA LTD. .VS. MUBARAK ALI & ORS. DOJ : 21/04/2005 JUDGEMENT
MINES & MINERALS -NATIONALISATION -LAND ACQUISITION -GAUHATI
CITATION(S) 2005 (3 ) SCR 850 = 2005 (11 ) SCC 293 = 2005 (11 ) JT 43 = 2005 (4 ) SCALE 323

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. .VS. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR & ORS. DOJ : 30/03/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 2204 = 2005 (2 ) SCR 1197 = 2005 (4 ) SCC 264 = 2005 (4 ) JT 24 = 2005 (3 ) SCALE 424

U.P. PARENTS ASSOCIATION & ORS. .VS. S.K. BHARGAVA & ORS. DOJ : 22/02/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -TENANT -QUASHING NOTIFICATION -SETTING ASIDE
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 1952 = 2005 (3 ) SCC 444 = 2005 (10 ) JT 220 = 2005 (2 ) SCALE 405

SWASTHYA RAKSHA SAMITI RATI CHOWK .VS. CHAUDHARY RAM HARAKH CHAND (D) BY LRS. DOJ : 22/02/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ENQUIRY -MANDATORY -U P
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 1835 = 2005 (2 ) SCC 718 = 2005 (5 ) JT 561 = 2005 (2 ) SCALE 294

KOLI NANJI BHUTA .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 20/01/2005 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -ENTITLEMENT
CITATION(S) 2005 (11 ) SCC 439 =

H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. .VS. SHIV K. SHARMA & ORS. DOJ : 10/01/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -EASEMENT -RIGHT -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 954 = 2005 (1 ) SCR 209 = 2005 (2 ) SCC 164 = 2005 (1 ) JT 169 = 2005 (1 ) SCALE 150

EASEMENTARY RIGHT IN LAND CANNOT EXTINGUISH EVEN AFTER ACQUISITION 2005 SC
JUSTICE SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & JUSTICE B.N. SRIKRISHNA IN A CASE OF H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. VS SHIV K. SHARMA & ORS. REPORTED IN AIR 2005 SC 954, “THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH CONSIDERED SEVERAL JUDGMENTS CITED BEFORE IT AND DREW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EASEMENT OF AN ORDINARY NATURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH COMPENSATION COULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND AN EASEMENT OF NECESSITY LIKE A RIGHT OF PASSAGE AND HELD THAT RIGHT OF PASSAGE BY WAY OF NECESSITY, AS ENJOYED BY THE RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFFS OVER THE LAND OF RIKHI RAM AND NOW ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT DEFENDANTS, WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED BY REASON OF ACQUISITION. THE HIGH COURT RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT MADE IN COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY V. NUSSERWANJI RATTANJI MISTRI AND OTHERS. (AIR 1955 SC 298), WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THUS : "UNDER SECTION 16, WHEN THE COLLECTOR MAKES AN AWARD "HE MAY TAKE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WHICH SHALL THEREUPON VEST ABSOLUTELY IN THE GOVERNMENT FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCE". THE WORD "ENCUMBRANCE" IN THIS SECTION CAN ONLY MEAN INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH A COMPENSATION WAS MADE UNDER S.11 OR COULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED." …………… IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION DRAWN BY THE HIGH COURT ABOUT NON- EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT OF EASEMENT ARISING OUT OF NECESSITY APPEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED BOTH ON PRINCIPLE AND PRECEDENT.”
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. & ANR. .VS. SANGH DASS & ANR. DOJ : 05/01/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LAND & BUILDING -OWNERSHIP -H P
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 891 = 2005 (9 ) SCC 217 = 2005 (1 ) JT 46 = 2005 (1 ) SCALE 38

SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. & ANR. .VS. DILA RAM & ORS. DOJ : 05/01/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REHABILITATION -SCHEME -BENEFITS
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 531 = 2005 (1 ) SCR 66 = 2005 (2 ) SCC 122 = 2005 (1 ) JT 40 = 2005 (1 ) SCALE 34

SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. & ANR. .VS. SANGH DASS & ANR. DOJ : 05/01/2005 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REHABILITATION -SCHEME -BENEFITS
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 891 = 2005 (9 ) SCC 217 = 2005 (1 ) JT 46 = 2005 (1 ) SCALE 38

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELLARY .VS. S.T. POMPANNA SETTY DOJ : 17/12/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MULTIPLIER METHOD -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2005 AIR 749 = 2004 (6 ) SUPPL. SCR 1171 = 2005 (9 ) SCC 662 = 2005 (1 ) JT 216 = 2004 (10 ) SCALE 564

WHEN FRUIT YIELDING TREES ARE ACQUIRED – NO DEDUCTIONS OF EXPENSES- MULTIPLIER METHOD 2004 SC
JUSTICE RUMA PAL & JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER IN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELLARY .VS. S.T. POMPANNA SETTY REPORTED IN AIR 2005 SC 749, THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO FRUIT BEARING TREES AND NOT AGRICULTURE. THE TREES WERE SUFFICIENTLY OLD AND GROWN UP AND WERE GIVING FRUITS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NOT QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS EXPENSES ………………………………….. NORMALLY IN THE CASES WHERE COMPENSATION IS AWARDED ON YIELD BASIS, MULTIPLIER OF 10 IS CONSIDERED PROPER AND APPROPRIATE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, MULTIPLIER OF 15 HAS BEEN APPLIED WHICH IS ON A HIGHER SIDE. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE FACT AND OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIMANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN AMOUNT OF MORE THAN RUPEES SIX LAC. SINCE HE HAD RESTRICTED HIS CLAIM TO RUPEES FIVE LAC, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN AMOUNT MORE THAN THAT.
U.P.S.I.D.C. .VS. SHAKTI BHATTA UDYOG & ORS. DOJ : 19/08/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 4388 = 2004 (8 ) SCC 70 = 2004 (6 ) JT 553 = 2004 (7 ) SCALE 50

OM PRAKASH (D) BY LRS. & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. & ANR. DOJ : 05/08/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2004 (10 ) SCC 627 = 2004 (6 ) JT 288 = 2004 (6 ) SCALE 455

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DDA .VS. BALI RAM SHARMA & ORS. DOJ : 03/08/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2004 ( 6 ) SCC 533 = 2004 ( 6 ) JT 422 = 2004 ( 6 ) SCALE 452

STATE OF UTTRANCHAL THROUGH COLLECTOR DEHRADUN & ANR. .VS. AJIT SINGH BHOLA & ANR. DOJ : 07/05/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REQUISITION -MUSLIM WOMAN -UTTARANCHAL
CITATION(S) 2004 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 627 = 2004 (6 ) SCC 800 = 2004 (5 ) JT 513 = 2004 (5 ) SCALE 811

MEHAR RUSI DALAL (MRS.) .VS. T.K.BANERJEE & ORS DOJ : 05/05/2004 JUDGEMENT
CONTEMPT OF COURT -LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 2004 ( 5 ) SCC 119 = 2004 ( 5 ) JT 190 = 2004 ( 5 ) SCALE 454

MEHER RUSI DALAL .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 05/05/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -APPORTIONMENT -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 3491 = 2004 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 956 = 2004 (7 ) SCC 362 = 2004 (5 ) JT 129 = 2004 (5 ) SCALE 442

U.O.I. & ORS. .VS. KRISHAN LAL ARNEJA & ORS. DOJ : 28/04/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 3582 = 2004 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 801 = 2004 (8 ) SCC 453 = 2004 (2 ) SUPPL. JT 245 = 2004 (5 ) SCALE 207

UNION OF INDIA .VS. M/S BANWARI LAL AND SONS DOJ : 12/04/2004 JUDGEMENT
ARBITRATION -LAND ACQUISITION -IMMOVABLE PROPERTY -DDA
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1983 = 2004 (3 ) SCR 1194 = 2004 (5 ) SCC 304 = 2004 (4 ) JT 519 = 2004 (4 ) SCALE 443

KIRAN TANDON .VS. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. DOJ : 23/03/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LEASEHOLD -COMPENSATION -PROPORTION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 2006 = 2004 (3 ) SCR 467 = 2004 (10 ) SCC 745 = 2004 (3 ) JT 579 = 2004 (3 ) SCALE 691

TENANT HAVING RIGHTS TO GET COMPENSATION WHEN LEASE HOLD SUBSITING IN THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY 2004 SC

JUSTICE S. RAJENDRA BABU, JUSTICE DR. AR LAKSHMANAN & JUSTICE G.P. MATHUR. IN KIRAN TANDON VS ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. REPORTED IN AIR 2004 SC 2006 HELD : THE REFERENCE COURT HAS LOST SIGHT OF CHAPTER V OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 WHICH DEALS WITH LEASES OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY. LEASEHOLD RIGHTS BEING LIMITED IN NATURE AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM OWNERSHIP RIGHT, A LESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUIRED LAND. THE LEASE EXPIRED ON 8.6.1987 AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN OVER ON 16.6.1987. HOWEVER EVEN ACCORDING TO THE CASE SET UP BY THE CLAIMANT, THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS TAKEN OVER JUST 21 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD GET 20 PER CENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND THE BALANCE 80 PER CENT IS PAYABLE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE STATUTORY SUM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1A) AND THE SOLATIUM UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 23 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 SHALL BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY……………. THE COLLECTOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN OFFER OF COMPENSATION MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE CLAIMANTS WHOSE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR IS INADEQUATE LIES UPON THE CLAIMANT AND HE IS IN A POSITION OF A PLAINTIFF. THE COURT HAS TO TREAT THE REFERENCE AS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE IT. THE CLAIMANT HAS TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE OFFERED FOR HIS LAND IN THE AWARD IS INADEQUATE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS PRODUCED IN THE COURT. THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PROVED BY THE OTHER SIDE WILL ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THIS PURPOSE. ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, THE REFERENCE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT THE TIME OF THE ACQUISITION WAS NOT LESS THAN RS. 500 PER SQUARE YARD. THE HIGH COURT HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUE OF THE LAND DETERMINED BY THE REFERENCE COURT. AS THE HIGH COURT HAS AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE REFERENCE COURT, THIS COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER IT PROPER TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID FINDING………….. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INDICATES THAT THE ACQUIRED LAND IS SITUATE IN A DEVELOPED AREA AND APPROACH ROAD TO THE LAND AND ALSO POWER LINES ARE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, IN CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-STOREYED RESIDENTIAL FLATS A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE LAND HAS TO BE LEFT OUT FOR INTERNAL ROADS, SEWER LINE, OPEN SPACE ETC. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING DEDUCTION OF 20 PER CENT FROM THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. ……………… THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT WHEN THE AUTHORITY TOOK POSSESSION OF THE LAND, THE LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. FURTHER THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY RENEWAL CLAUSE. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE CLAIMANT THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN A DECISION TO RENEW THE LEASE IN HIS FAVOUR IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD……………….. THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE REPORT OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER FILED BY THE CLAIMANT SHOWS THAT WHILE ASSESSING THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING HE HAD ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAND UNDERNEATH THE SAME WHICH WAS MORE THAN 400 SQUARE METERS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE VALUE OF THE LAND HAD BEEN ASSESSED ALL OVER AGAIN. THERE IS ANOTHER FALLACY IN HIS REPORT. HE HAS ASSESSED THE AGE OF THE BUILDING FROM THE TIME OF ITS RENOVATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FOUNDATION, WALLS AND ROOF HAD BEEN MADE ALL OVER AGAIN WHEN RENOVATION WAS DONE, NOR IT APPEARS LOGICAL. SO, THE WHOLE METHOD OF CALCULATION WAS FAULTY. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT THAT THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING WHICH WAS MORE THAN 90 YEARS OLD IS RS. 60,000 IS PERFECTLY CORRECT AND CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE. SIMILARLY, NO INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE HIGH COURT REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE TREES.

GAON SABHA AND ANOTHER .VS. NATHI & ORS. DOJ : 23/03/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD
CITATION(S) 2004 (3 ) SCR 354 = 2004 (12 ) SCC 555 = 2004 (4 ) JT 36 = 2004 (4 ) SCALE 3

R.L. JAIN (D) BY LRS. .VS. DDA & ORS. DOJ : 12/03/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -EVACUEE PROPERTY -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1904 = 2004 (2 ) SCR 1156 = 2004 (4 ) SCC 79 = 2004 (3 ) JT 272 = 2004 (3 ) SCALE 234

SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. NIRODA SUNDARI DEBIDHUP & ORS. DOJ : 20/02/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -EXCESS LAND -SETTLEMENT -RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1781 = 2004 (2 ) SCR 581 = 2004 (4 ) SCC 389 = 2004 (2 ) JT 591 = 2004 (2 ) SCALE 599

GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES M/S .VS. COLLECTOR , GOLAGHAT , ASSAM & ANR. DOJ : 17/02/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -TEA ESTATE -ASSAM
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1738 = 2004 ( 4 ) SCC 122 = 2004 ( 2 ) JT 556 = 2004 ( 2 ) SCALE 547

H.P. HOUSING BOARD .VS. BHARAT S.NEGI & ORS. DOJ : 27/01/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1800 = 2004 ( 2 ) SCC 184 = 2004 ( 2 ) SCALE 99

UOI .VS. BAL RAM & ANR DOJ : 20/01/2004 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LAND -VALUATION -FACTORS
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 3981 = 2010 (5 ) SCC 747 =

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI SAHASWAN DISTRICT BADAUN THRU SE .VS. BIPIN KUMAR & ANR. DOJ : 07/01/2004 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 2895 = 2004 (2 ) SCC 283 = 2004 (1 ) JT 344 = 2004 (1 ) SCALE 332

V. HANUMANTHA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & MANDAL R. OFFICER DOJ : 17/12/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DEDUCTION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1185 = 2003 (12 ) SCC 642 = 2003 (10 ) SCALE 874

U.O.I. .VS. SAVJIRAM & ANR. DOJ : 17/12/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -VALUATION -DEDUCTION -M P
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 4532 = 2003 (6 ) SUPPL. SCR 1006 = 2004 (9 ) SCC 312 = 2003 (10 ) SCALE 1035

U.O.I. .VS. SAVJIRAM & ANR. DOJ : 17/12/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -VALUATION -HOUSE
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 4532 = 2003 (6 ) SUPPL. SCR 1006 = 2004 (9 ) SCC 312 = 2003 (10 ) SCALE 1035

PANNA LAL GHOSH & ORS. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. DOJ : 12/12/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -SOLATIUM -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1179 = 2003 (6 ) SUPPL. SCR 740 = 2004 (1 ) SCC 467 = 2003 (10 ) SCALE 725

THE AMENDED ACT 1984 AND SOLATIUM AND INTEREST PAYMENT CLARIFIED 2003 SC
JUSTICE S. RAJENDRA BABU & JUSTICE RUMA PAL. IN PANNA LAL GHOSH & ORS. VS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. REPORTED IN AIR 2004 SC 1179, THE COMPENSATION @ 36,000 PER ACRE AS AWARDED BY THE L.A. JUDGE IS UPHELD. THE APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO ENHANCED SOLATIUM @ 30% UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AND AN INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. THE HIGH COURT IN CONSIDERING THE CASE UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) OF THE ACT HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR. THE REFERENCE BY THE HIGH COURT TO SECTION 23(1-A) IS IRRELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE MAIN ASPECT THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE RATE OF SOLATIUM. BY AN AMENDMENT IN 1984, THE RATE WAS INCREASED TO 30% FROM THE ORIGINAL 15% BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 30(2) OF THE AMENDING ACT. THIS INCREASE WAS GIVEN A LIMITED RETROSPECTIVITY, IN THE SENSE THAT, THE AMENDING ACT, UNDER SECTION 30(2) PROVIDED THAT THE INCREASED SOLATIUM IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE AWARDS PASSED BY THE COLLECTOR OR THE COURT BETWEEN 30.4.1982 AND 29.9.1984. THE AWARD WAS MADE BY THE L.A. COLLECTOR IN 1974. HOWEVER, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 30.4.1982 AND 29.9.1984, THE REFERENCE WAS PENDING IN THE REFERENCE COURT WHICH PASSED ITS AWARD IN 1985. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY TO A CASE PENDING DURING THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM 30.4.1982 TO 29.9.1984. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE ENHANCED SOLATIUM WOULD APPLY EVEN TO A CASE PENDING AT THE TIME THE ACT CAME INTO FORCE. THUS, THE BENEFIT OF ENHANCED SOLATIUM WOULD EXTEND TO THE PRESENT CASE. ……………….. SOLATIUM IS `MONEY COMFORT' QUANTIFIED BY THE STATUTE AND GIVEN AS A CONCILIATORY MEASURE FOR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THE CITIZEN, BY A WELFARE STATE SUCH AS INDIA. THUS THE STATUTORY AMOUNT OF SOLATIUM IS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE THE OWNER FOR HIS DISTINCTION TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY. THE PROVISION OF SOLATIUM IS MANDATORY AND CANNOT BE DONE AWAY WITH. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF SOLATIUM BY THE WEST BENGAL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 8(2) OF THE ACT IS HELD TO BE INVALID. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION THAT SECTION 8(2) OF THE ACT EXCLUDES COM-PENSATION BY WAY OF SOLATIUM DOES NOT HOLD GOOD. …………….. COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON A PIECE OF LAND ACQUIRED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SO ACQUIRED. THE MOST RELIABLE WAY TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE IS TO RELY ON THE INSTANCES OF SALE OF PORTIONS OF THE SAME LAND AS HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR ADJACENT LANDS MADE SHORTLY BEFORE OR AFTER THE SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION. WHILE DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND, IT MUST BE WITH REFERENCE TO A PIECE OF LAND WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THE PRESENT LANDS BEING ACQUIRED. IT MUST BE SIMILAR IN POTENTIALITY AND NATURE. THE DOCUMENT WHICH THE APPELLANTS SEEK TO RELY ON RELATES TO LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSAM-AGARTALA ROAD. IT WAS 3 FEET HIGHER THAN THE ACQUIRED LAND. FURTHER, THE TWO LANDS WERE NOT PROVED TO BE COMPARABLE IN NATURE AND POTENTIALITY. THEREFORE, THE HIGH COURT IS RIGHT IN NOT RELYING ON THE SAID DOCUMENTS AND DISALLOW-ING THE CLAIM FOR ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.

PANNA LAL GHOSH & ORS. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. DOJ : 12/12/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -TRIPURA
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 1179 = 2003 (6 ) SUPPL. SCR 740 = 2004 (1 ) SCC 467 = 2003 (10 ) SCALE 725

LILA GHOSH (DEAD) THRU LR SH. TAPAS CHANDRA ROY .VS. STATE OF W.B. DOJ : 18/11/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -W B
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 288 = 2003 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 599 = 2004 (9 ) SCC 337 = 2003 (9 ) JT 23 = 2003 (9 ) SCALE 637

LILA GHOSH (DEAD) THRU LR SH. TAPAS CHANDRA ROY .VS. STATE OF W.B. DOJ : 18/11/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -BELTING METHOD -APPLICABILITY
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 288 = 2003 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 599 = 2004 (9 ) SCC 337 = 2003 (9 ) JT 23 = 2003 (9 ) SCALE 637

COMPENSATION – COMPARITIVE METHOD AND BELTING METHOD DISCUSSED BY SC 2003 SC

JUSTICE S. N. VARIAVA & JUSTICE H. K. SEMA IN SMT. LILA GHOSH VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPORTED IN AIR 2004 SC 288, HELD: VALUATION ARRIVED AFTER COMPARING SIMILAR LAND : REGARDING VALUATION OF LAND ACQUIRED IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF THE ADJOINING LAND, THE LAND IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD FRONTAGE OF ONLY 170 FT ON LESS WIDE ROAD, APPRECIATION OF 5% CAN BE GIVEN FOR FRONTAGE. IN THE EARLIER JUDGMENT AVERAGING PRICE OF SALE INSTANCES OF SMALL PLOTS THE VALUE WAS FIXED AT RS.11,260. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT LARGE PIECE OF LAND WOULD NEVER FETCH THE SAME PRICE AS SMALL PIECE OF LAND, THEREFORE, FOR LARGENESS 5% DEPRECIATION CAN BE GIVEN. GIVING THE ABOVE APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION, THE PRICE REMAINS RS.11,260 PER COTTAH. EARLIER ACQUISITION WAS FOR YEAR 1974 AND ON BASIS OF 10% APPRECIATION PER ANNUM APPRECIATION OF 95% IS GIVEN FOR 9+ YEARS WHICH IS RS.10,697. TO THE FIGURE OF RS.11,260 IF RS.10,697 IS ADDED THE VALUE WOULD BE RS.21,957 PER COTTAH. THEREFORE, COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE AT THE RATE OF RS.21,957 PER COTTAH. FURTHER, THE CLAIMANTS WILL BE ENTITLED TO SOLATIUM AT THE RATE OF 30% AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF 12% FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATION TO THE DATE OF PASSING OF AWARD.
BELTING METHOD: THE ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF FILM STUDIO. IT WAS A COMPACT BLOCK OF LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. THE LAND WAS NOT ACQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO SMALL PLOTS WHERE THE VALUE OF PLOTS NEAR THE ROAD WOULD HAVE A HIGHER VALUE WHILST THOSE FURTHER AWAY MAY HAVE A LESSER VALUE. IN SUCH CASES WHERE A COMPACT BLOCK IS ACQUIRED THE BELTING METHOD WOULD NOT BE THE CORRECT METHOD.
POTENTIALITY INCREASE:- IN THE EARLIER JUDGMENT WHILE DETERMINING THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPARABLE UNITS SITUATED IN A NEWLY DEVELOPED POST RESIDENTIAL LOCALITY POTENTIALITY HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF RS.11,260, THEREFORE, THE GRANT OF ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE TOWARDS POTENTIALITY DOES NOT ARISE. THUS THE REFERENCE COURT AND HIGH COURT ERRED IN GIVING A 10% INCREASE FOR POTENTIALITY.
LARGE PLOT VS SMALL PLOTS:- THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT IF A PLOT IS LARGE, THEN THERE MUST BE DEPRECIATION FOR LARGENESS, LARGE PLOTS ALWAYS FETCH LESS THAN SMALL PLOTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPRECIATION FOR LARGENESS.
PAYMENT OF INTEREST SECTION 34 SHOWS THAT INTEREST IS PAYABLE ONLY IF THE COMPENSATION, WHICH IS PAYABLE, IS NOT PAID OR DEPOSITED BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION. THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OR DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION WILL NOT ARISE IF THERE IS NO ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. IN CASE WHERE POSSESSION IS TAKEN PRIOR TO ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS A PARTY MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION OR INTEREST. BUT SUCH A CLAIM WOULD NOT BE EITHER UNDER SECTION 34 OR SECTION 28. INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS CAN ONLY START RUNNING FROM THE DATE COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE. NORMALLY, THIS WOULD BE FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD. THERE MAY BE CASES UNDER SECTION 17 WHERE BY INVOKING URGENCY CLAUSE POSSESSION HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED. IN SUCH CASES, COMPENSATION, UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, WOULD BE PAYABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17. AS IN CASES UNDER SECTION 17 COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE INTEREST MAY RUN FROM THE DATE POSSESSION WAS TAKEN. HOWEVER, THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IF AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS PAID OR DEPOSITED, IT IS FOUND THAT COMPENSATION PAYABLE HAS NOT BEEN PAID OR DEPOSITED THEN INTEREST THEREON, EITHER UNDER SECTION 28 OR 34 WILL BE PAYABLE FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD TILL PAYMENT.

HARYANA STATE HANDLOOM & HANDICRAFTS CORPORTION LTD. & ANR. .VS. JAIN SCHOOL SOCIETY DOJ : 29/10/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 850 = 2003 (12 ) SCC 538 = 2003 (8 ) JT 91 = 2003 (9 ) SCALE 39

BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD .VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DOJ : 05/09/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3817 = 2003 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 393 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 1 = 2003 (7 ) JT 569 = 2003 (7 ) SCALE 193

KANAK & ANR. .VS. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS. DOJ : 01/09/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3894 = 2003 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 232 = 2003 (7 ) SCC 693 = 2003 (9 ) JT 398 = 2003 (7 ) SCALE 157

TEJUMAL BHOJWANI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 26/08/2003 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -U.P.
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3791 = 2003 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 1044 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 525 = 2003 (2 ) SUPPL. JT 194 = 2003 (7 ) SCALE 38

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .VS. MAIMUMA BANU & ORS. DOJ : 05/08/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -RENATAL COMPENSATION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3698 = 2003 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 228 = 2003 (7 ) SCC 448 = 2003 (7 ) JT 171 = 2003 (6 ) SCALE 479

PRATIBHA NEMA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. DOJ : 30/07/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MEANING -M P
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3140 = 2003 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 890 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 626 = 2003 (6 ) JT 256 = 2003 (5 ) SCALE 622

PRATIBHA NEMA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. DOJ : 30/07/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REVENUE -STATE
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3140 = 2003 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 890 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 626 = 2003 (6 ) JT 256 = 2003 (5 ) SCALE 622

STATE OF A.P. & ANR. .VS. MARRI VENKAIAH & ORS. DOJ : 28/07/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 2949 = 2003 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 841 = 2003 (7 ) SCC 280 = 2003 (6 ) JT 179 = 2003 (5 ) SCALE 480

STATE OF A.P. & ANR. .VS. MARRI VENKAIAH & ORS. DOJ : 28/07/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -APPLICATION -PERIOD -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 2949 = 2003 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 841 = 2003 (7 ) SCC 280 = 2003 (6 ) JT 179 = 2003 (5 ) SCALE 480

VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 22/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -ASSESSMENT
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 2493 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 864 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 86 = 2003 (5 ) JT 369 = 2003 (4 ) SCALE 466

VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 22/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -AWARD -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 2493 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 864 = 2003 (10 ) SCC 86 = 2003 (5 ) JT 369 = 2003 (4 ) SCALE 466

PRAYAG UPNIVESH AWAS EVAM NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. .VS. ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. DOJ : 16/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -ALLAHABAD
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 2302 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 567 = 2003 (5 ) SCC 561 = 2003 (4 ) SCALE 39

LAXMINARAYAN R. BHATTAD & ORS. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. DOJ : 04/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -FLOOR SPACE INDEX
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3502 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 409 = 2003 (5 ) SCC 413 = 2003 (3 ) SCALE 711

CHARANJIT KAUR (DEAD) THR. PROPOSED LRS. .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 04/04/2003 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2004 AIR 4940 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 439 = 2003 (5 ) SCC 94 = 2003 (3 ) JT 596 = 2003 (3 ) SCALE 705

AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 03/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -VALIDITY -NOTIFICATION -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3519 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 351 = 2003 (5 ) SCC 365 = 2003 (3 ) JT 566 = 2003 (3 ) SCALE 623

AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 03/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DEFINITION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 3519 = 2003 (3 ) SCR 351 = 2003 (5 ) SCC 365 = 2003 (3 ) JT 566 = 2003 (3 ) SCALE 623

G.M. DEP. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .VS. JACOB S/O KOCHUVARKEY KALLIATH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. DOJ : 01/04/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PROCEEDINGS
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 1308 = 2003 ( 3 ) SCR 214 = 2003 ( 9 ) SCC 662 = 2003 ( 3 ) JT 522 = 2003 ( 3 ) SCALE 549

CITY & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD .VS. DAMODAR KHEMCHAND TALREJA & ANR. DOJ : 04/03/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ACT -AMENDMENT -APPLICABILITY
CITATION(S) 2003 ( 4 ) SCC 214 = 2003 ( 5 ) JT 37 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCALE 603

CITY & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD .VS. DAMODAR KHEMCHAND TALREJA & ANR. DOJ : 04/03/2003 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 2003 ( 4 ) SCC 214 = 2003 ( 5 ) JT 37 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCALE 603

RAVINDER NARAIN & ANR. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 28/02/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 1987 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCR 424 = 2003 ( 4 ) SCC 481 = 2003 ( 5 ) JT 160 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCALE 509

SHARDA DEVI .VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. DOJ : 08/01/2003 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE -BIHAR
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 942 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCR 73 = 2003 ( 3 ) SCC 128 = 2003 ( 1 ) JT 18 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCALE 85

BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY .VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/2002 JUDGEMENT
TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -TEN YEARS -RESERVATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 511 = 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 517 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCC 111 = 2002 (10 ) JT 55 = 2002 ( 9 ) SCALE 102

BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY .VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/2002 JUDGEMENT
TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -RESERVATION -DERESERVATION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 511 = 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 517 = 2003 ( 2 ) SCC 111 = 2002 (10 ) JT 55 = 2002 ( 9 ) SCALE 102

STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. .VS. ROOPCHAND DAS & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION -PERIOD
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 448 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 421 = 2002 (10 ) JT 89 = 2002 ( 9 ) SCALE 31

JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. DOJ : 27/11/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -PUNJAB & HARYANA
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 620 = 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 370 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 526 = 2002 (10 ) JT 77 = 2002 ( 9 ) SCALE 194

HARBANS LAL MALHOTRA & SONS LTD. .VS. U.O.I. & ORS. DOJ : 13/11/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -TIME
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) JT 129 =

KASTURI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 12/11/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -DEVELOPMENT CHARGES -DEDUCTION
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 202 = 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 117 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 354 = 2002 ( 9 ) JT 299 = 2002 ( 8 ) SCALE 426

U.O.I. .VS. KEHAR SINGH DOJ : 12/11/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) JT 159 =

KASTURI & ORS. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 12/11/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEDUCTION -PERMISSIBILITY
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 202 = 2002 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 117 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 354 = 2002 ( 9 ) JT 299 = 2002 ( 8 ) SCALE 426

NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES .VS. JASWANT SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 29/10/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LACHES -WRIT -MAINTAINABILITY
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 234 = 2002 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 534 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 335 = 2002 ( 9 ) JT 240 = 2002 ( 8 ) SCALE 336

NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES .VS. JASWANT SINGH & ORS. DOJ : 29/10/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -DELAY -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2003 AIR 234 = 2002 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 534 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 335 = 2002 ( 9 ) JT 240 = 2002 ( 8 ) SCALE 336

KANAKA GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARA SANGHA .VS. NARAYANAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS & ORS. DOJ : 03/10/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -APPROVAL -STATE GOVERNMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 97 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 228 = 2002 ( 8 ) JT 71 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCALE 257

KANAKA GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARA SANGHA .VS. NARAYANAMMA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS & ORS. DOJ : 03/10/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MYSORE
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 97 = 2003 ( 1 ) SCC 228 = 2002 ( 8 ) JT 71 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCALE 257

MADAN LAL .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. DOJ : 01/10/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -POWERS -COURTS
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 8 ) JT 219 =
282. MADAN LAL .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. DOJ : 01/10/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 8 ) JT 219 =

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. VASANTRAO DOJ : 26/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -CENTRAL ACT -STATE ACTS -AMENDMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 636 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 657 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 447 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCALE 307

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. VASANTRAO DOJ : 26/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -COMPENSATION -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 636 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 657 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 447 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCALE 307

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. VASANTRAO DOJ : 26/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUNJAB -NAGPUR -U P
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 636 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 657 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 447 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCALE 307

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST UDAIPUR .VS. BHERU LAL & ORS. DOJ : 20/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PERIOD -ONE YEAR
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 3309 = 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 512 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 712 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 310 = 2002 ( 6 ) SCALE 558

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST UDAIPUR .VS. BHERU LAL & ORS. DOJ : 20/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WRIT PETITION -DELAY -LACHES
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 3309 = 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 512 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 712 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 310 = 2002 ( 6 ) SCALE 558

U.O.I. & ANR. .VS. HANSOLI DEVI & ORS. DOJ : 12/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 3240 = 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 324 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 273 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 42 = 2002 ( 6 ) SCALE 356

U.O.I. & ANR. .VS. HANSOLI DEVI & ORS. DOJ : 12/09/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION -MAINTAINABILITY
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 3240 = 2002 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 324 = 2002 ( 7 ) SCC 273 = 2002 ( 7 ) JT 42 = 2002 ( 6 ) SCALE 356

NARPAT SINGH ETC. ETC. .VS. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. DOJ : 24/04/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SETTLEMENT -COMPROMISE -EXECUTION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 2036 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCR 365 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 666 = 2002 ( 1 ) SUPPL. JT 481 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCALE 31

NARPAT SINGH ETC. ETC. .VS. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. DOJ : 24/04/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -PLOT -ALLOTMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 2036 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCR 365 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 666 = 2002 ( 1 ) SUPPL. JT 481 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCALE 31

K.M. SHARMA .VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(7) DOJ : 11/04/2002 JUDGEMENT
INCOME TAX -LAND ACQUISITION -ASSESSMENT -REASSESSMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1715 = 2002 (2 ) SCR 1047 = 2002 (4 ) SCC 339 = 2002 (4 ) JT 10 = 2002 (3 ) SCALE 383

MUNITHIMMAIAH .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 22/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -DISTILLERY -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1574 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 825 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 326 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 254 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCALE 194

MUNITHIMMAIAH .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 22/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NON AGRICULTURAL USE -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1574 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 825 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 326 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 254 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCALE 194

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BTDA BAGALKOT .VS. MOHD. HANIF SAHIB BAWA SAHIB DOJ : 19/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -MARKET VALUE -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1558 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 550 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 688 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 176 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCALE 22

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .VS. SATYAGOPAL ROY & ORS. DOJ : 15/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -FRUIT BEARING TREES -MARKET VALUE -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1423 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 505 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 527 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 58 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 663

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .VS. SATYAGOPAL ROY & ORS. DOJ : 15/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -CAPITALISATION METHOD
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1423 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 505 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 527 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 58 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 663

SHARDA DEVI .VS. STATE OF BIHAR DOJ : 13/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LETTER PATENT -MAINTAINABILITY -BIHAR
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1357 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 404 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 705 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 43 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 594

PADMA SUNARA RAO (DEAD) & ORS. .VS. STATE OF T.N. & ORS. DOJ : 13/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -QUASHING -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1334 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 383 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 533 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 1 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 580

FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. .VS. NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI & ANR. DOJ : 07/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -URGENCY OF LAND -POWER OF GOVERNMENT -W B
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1314 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 326 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 160 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 620 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 513

RAJ KUMAR JOHRI & ANR. .VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. DOJ : 07/03/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -AWARD -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1519 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 512 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 732 = 2002 ( 3 ) JT 340 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCALE 17

FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. .VS. NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI & ANR. DOJ : 07/03/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PREMISES -PUBLIC PURPOSE -POWER OF GOVERNMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1314 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 326 = 2002 ( 4 ) SCC 160 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 620 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 513

KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 19/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -POWERS -AGREEMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1114 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 1118 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 141 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 240 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 228

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO A.P. .VS. B.V. REDDY & SONS DOJ : 14/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AMENDMENT -APPLICABILITY
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1045 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 1041 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 463 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 53 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 162

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO A.P. .VS. B.V. REDDY & SONS DOJ : 14/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AMENDMENT -APPLICABILITY -EFFECT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1045 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 1041 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 463 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 53 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 162

KOPPATHI VENKATI & ORS. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 07/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 987 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 153 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 84 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 47

KOPPATHI VENKATI & ORS. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 07/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -RES JUDICATA -A P
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 987 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 153 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 84 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCALE 47

KASHIBEN BHIKABAI & ORS. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 06/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AGREEMENT -COMPENSATION -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1105 = 2002 (1 ) SCR 852 = 2002 (2 ) SCC 605 = 2002 (3 ) JT 369 = 2002 (2 ) SCALE 40

KASHIBEN BHIKABAI & ORS. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 06/02/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -ENTITLEMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 1105 = 2002 (1 ) SCR 852 = 2002 (2 ) SCC 605 = 2002 (3 ) JT 369 = 2002 (2 ) SCALE 40

MOHAMMAD AZIZ RAHAMAN & ORS. .VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER YADGIR KARNAT DOJ : 31/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COOPERATION -COMPENSATION -FIXATION
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) JT 170 =

ABDUL RASAK & ORS. .VS. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS. DOJ : 25/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 817 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 615 = 2002 ( 3 ) SCC 228 = 2002 ( 1 ) JT 652 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCALE 538

KHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 24/01/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 726 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 431 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCC 242 = 2002 ( 1 ) JT 262 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCALE 316

KHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 24/01/2002 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -DISMISSAL -DEFAULT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 726 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCR 431 = 2002 ( 2 ) SCC 242 = 2002 ( 1 ) JT 262 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCALE 316

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. KANAK & ANR. DOJ : 24/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -U P
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) JT 485 =

U.O.I. & ORS. .VS. RAJA MAHENDRAGIRIJI & ORS. DOJ : 23/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -STAY -PERIOD -REQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) JT 433 =

K.M. MOHAMMED HANEEFA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 15/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SECOND APPEAL -DISMISSAL -IN LIMINE
CITATION(S) 2003 (10 ) SCC 220 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 332 = 2004 ( 4 ) SCALE 211

K.M. MOHAMMED HANEEFA & ORS. .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 15/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SECOND APPEAL -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 2003 (10 ) SCC 220 = 2002 ( 2 ) JT 332 = 2004 ( 4 ) SCALE 211

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI .VS. K.N. MUNSHI & ANR. DOJ : 15/01/2002 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -RATE
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 2 ) JT 327 =

DAULAT SINGH SURANA .VS. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DOJ : 08/01/2002 ORDER
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 1 ) JT 290 =

SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 20/11/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE -PROPERTY -COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 195 = 2001 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 273 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 273 = 2001 ( 9 ) JT 538 = 2001 ( 8 ) SCALE 206

SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 19/11/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -DECLARATION -PUBLICATION -TIME LIMIT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 187 = 2001 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 255 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 689 = 2001 ( 9 ) JT 551 = 2001 ( 8 ) SCALE 185

SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 19/11/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -DECLARATION -TIME LIMIT
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 187 = 2001 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 255 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 689 = 2001 ( 9 ) JT 551 = 2001 ( 8 ) SCALE 185

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NALGONDA .VS. MORISETTY SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS DOJ : 17/10/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -FIXATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 570 = 2001 (10 ) JT 200 =

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NALGONDA .VS. MORISETTY SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS DOJ : 17/10/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDUCTION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 570 = 2001 (10 ) JT 200 =

SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI & ANR. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 16/10/2001 JUDGEMENT
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES -RULE OF CONSTRUCTION -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2951 = 2001 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 236 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 142 = 2001 ( 9 ) JT 176 = 2001 ( 7 ) SCALE 380

SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI & ANR. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. DOJ : 16/10/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -PAYABILITY -PERIOD
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2951 = 2001 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 236 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 142 = 2001 ( 9 ) JT 176 = 2001 ( 7 ) SCALE 380

S.H. RANGAPPA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. DOJ : 03/10/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -OBJECTION
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 3863 = 2001 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 545 = 2002 ( 1 ) SCC 538 = 2001 ( 8 ) JT 545 = 2001 ( 7 ) SCALE 219

L.K. MALIK & ORS. ETC. .VS. D.D.A. & ORS. DOJ : 20/09/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LAND LAW -RELEASE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 4034 = 2001 ( 8 ) SCC 222 = 2001 ( 8 ) JT 93 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCALE 419

SUNDER .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 19/09/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -DEFINITION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 3516 = 2001 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 176 = 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 211 = 2001 ( 8 ) JT 130 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCALE 405

SUNDER .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 19/09/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 3516 = 2001 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 176 = 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 211 = 2001 ( 8 ) JT 130 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCALE 405

NILADRI NARAYAN CHANDRADHURJA (D) BY LRS. .VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL DOJ : 06/09/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -W B
CITATION(S) 2002 AIR 2532 = 2002 ( 9 ) SCC 682 = 2001 (10 ) JT 268 =

M.D. SINGARENI COLLERIES CO. LTD. .VS. KANGALA N. RAO AND ORS. DOJ : 05/09/2001 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS -EMPLOYMENT
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 679 = 2001 (9 ) JT 28 = 2001 (8 ) SCALE 335

M.D. SINGARENI COLLERIES CO. LTD. .VS. KANGALA N. RAO AND ORS. DOJ : 05/09/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS -EMPLOYMENT -A P
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 679 = 2001 (9 ) JT 28 = 2001 (8 ) SCALE 335

SHAJI KURIAKOSE & ANR. .VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. DOJ : 14/08/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDUCTION -COMPARATIVE SALES METHOD
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 3341 = 2001 (1 ) SUPPL. SCR 573 = 2001 (7 ) SCC 650 = 2001 (7 ) JT 4 = 2001 (5 ) SCALE 367

PROJECT OFFICER SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD. .VS. B. KOMARAIAH DOJ : 07/08/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -A P
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 3196 = 2001 (10 ) SCC 33 = 2001 ( 6 ) JT 603 = 2001 ( 5 ) SCALE 117

VISHAV BANDHU GUPTA & ANR. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DOJ : 02/08/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 114 = 2001 (10 ) JT 166 =

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ADMIN OFFICER .VS. UGRANAPPA & ORS. DOJ : 01/08/2001 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION -OBJECTION -COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 555 = 2001 (10 ) JT 88 =

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ADMIN OFFICER .VS. UGRANAPPA & ORS. DOJ : 01/08/2001 ORDER
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING BOARD -T N
CITATION(S) 2002 (10 ) SCC 555 = 2001 (10 ) JT 88 =

RANJIT SINGH AND ORS. .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DOJ : 26/07/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 2001 (10 ) JT 41 =

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. RAM SINGH DOJ : 25/07/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -COURTS
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2532 = 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 1178 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCC 254 = 2001 ( 6 ) JT 8 = 2001 ( 4 ) SCALE 527

KEWAL CHAND MIMANI (D) BY LRS. .VS. S.K. SEN & ORS. DOJ : 23/07/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REQUISITION -LEASE -W B
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2569 = 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 1056 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCC 512 = 2001 ( 6 ) JT 264 = 2001 ( 4 ) SCALE 559

P. JANARDHANA REDDY .VS. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. DOJ : 13/07/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMMISSION OF INQUIRY -APPOINTMENT
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2631 = 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 969 = 2001 ( 6 ) SCC 50 = 2001 ( 5 ) JT 416 = 2001 ( 4 ) SCALE 327

U.O.I. & ANR. .VS. HANSOLI DEVI & ORS. DOJ : 17/04/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SECTION 28-A -REFERRED LARGER BENCH
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2184 = 2001 ( 4 ) SCC 404 = 2001 ( 5 ) JT 80 = 2001 ( 3 ) SCALE 396

DEVI JAIN (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. DOJ : 29/03/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDUCTION -SALE DEED
CITATION(S) 2001 ( 1 ) SUPPL. JT 585 =

DRAUPADI DEVI DHARMADA TRUST D .VS. DAYA SHANKAR & ORS. DOJ : 13/03/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -WOMEN COLLEGE -PERSON INTERESTED
CITATION(S) 2001 ( 1 ) SUPPL. JT 509 =

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER .VS. V. NARASAIAH DOJ : 27/02/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -SALE DEED
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 1117 = 2001 ( 2 ) SCR 141 = 2001 ( 3 ) SCC 530 = 2001 ( 3 ) JT 157 = 2001 ( 2 ) SCALE 257

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS. DOJ : 07/02/2001 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -WRIT PETITION -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 992 = 2001 ( 2 ) SCC 646 = 2001 ( 2 ) JT 489 = 2001 ( 1 ) SCALE 679

O.A.K. NACHIMUTHU (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. .VS. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER ERODE T.N. DOJ : 17/01/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 2001 ( 9 ) SCC 582 = 2001 ( 3 ) JT 384 =

THAKARSIBHAI DEVJIBHAI & ORS. .VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUJARAT & ANR. DOJ : 11/01/2001 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDUCTION -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 2424 = 2001 ( 9 ) SCC 584 = 2001 ( 3 ) JT 90 =

STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 11/12/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PROCEEDINGS -WITHDRAWAL -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 2001 AIR 437 = 2000 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 483 = 2001 ( 1 ) SCC 610 = 2000 ( 3 ) SUPPL. JT 468 = 2000 ( 8 ) SCALE 281

HAR KIRAN COMMAR .VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. DOJ : 21/11/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -RELIEF -REVIEW PETITION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 6 = 2001 ( 1 ) SCC 249 = 2000 ( 3 ) SUPPL. JT 175 = 2000 ( 7 ) SCALE 582

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI .VS. KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. ETC. DOJ : 29/09/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -CLAIM
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 3282 = 2000 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 531 = 2000 (7 ) SCC 756 = 2000 (1 ) SUPPL. JT 251 = 2000 (6 ) SCALE 649

J. CHATTERJEE .VS. MOHINDER KAUR UPPAL DOJ : 29/09/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ACT -AMENDMENT
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 3076 = 2000 ( 7 ) SCC 510 = 2000 ( 1 ) SUPPL. JT 155 = 2000 ( 6 ) SCALE 603

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI .VS. KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. ETC. DOJ : 29/09/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ACT -AMENDMENT
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 3282 = 2000 (3 ) SUPPL. SCR 531 = 2000 (7 ) SCC 756 = 2000 (1 ) SUPPL. JT 251 = 2000 (6 ) SCALE 649

DELHI ADMINISTRATION .VS. GURDIP SINGH UBAN & ORS. ETC. DOJ : 18/08/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -REVIEW PETITION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 3737 = 2000 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 496 = 2000 ( 7 ) SCC 296 = 2000 ( 9 ) JT 245 = 2000 ( 5 ) SCALE 651

SPL. TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION .VS. NALLAMADAN DOJ : 31/07/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEPOSIT -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 9 ) JT 463 =

CHATTER SINGH .VS. USHA RANI DOJ : 27/07/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -VALUATION -RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 9 ) JT 482 =
STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. GAURI SHANKER (DEAD) DOJ : 26/07/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 2002 ( 9 ) SCC 684 = 2000 (10 ) JT 35 =

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR .VS. SARAT CHANDRA BISOI & ANR. DOJ : 11/05/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -VALUATION -ORISSA
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 2619 = 2000 ( 6 ) SCC 326 = 2000 ( 7 ) JT 77 = 2000 ( 4 ) SCALE 529

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR T.N. MAGNESITE LTD. & ANR. .VS. VAIYAPURI & ORS. DOJ : 08/05/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DISBURSEMENT -T N
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 8 ) JT 322 =

L. SRINIVASA REDDY .VS. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER -CUM- LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 28/04/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -CAPITALISATION METHOD -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 7 ) JT 535 =

MAHESHCHANDRA TRIKAMJI GAJJAR .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DOJ : 09/03/2000 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -EVICTION -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 1183 = 2000 ( 2 ) SCR 195 = 2000 ( 3 ) SCC 295 = 2000 ( 3 ) JT 92 = 2000 ( 2 ) SCALE 295

RAGHAVENDRA RAO .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 31/01/2000 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
CITATION(S) 2000 ( 7 ) JT 413 =

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR & ANR. .VS. SHAH HYDER BEIG & ORS. DOJ : 08/12/1999 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -WRIT PETITION -LACHES
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 671 = 1999 (5 ) SUPPL. SCR 197 = 2000 (2 ) SCC 48 = 1999 (10 ) JT 336 = 2000 (1 ) SCALE 124

ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN & DIU & ANR. .VS. MOHANLAL LALBHAI DESAI & ANR. DOJ : 18/11/1999 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -GRASS LAND -DAMAN & DIU
CITATION(S) 2000 AIR 604 = 2000 ( 1 ) SCC 27 = 1999 ( 9 ) JT 198 = 1999 ( 7 ) SCALE 146

JNANEDAYA YOGAM & ANR. .VS. K.K. PANKAJAKSHY & ORS. DOJ : 28/10/1999 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -PASSAGE -JAGANNATH TEMPLE
CITATION(S) 1999 AIR 3891 = 1999 (4 ) SUPPL. SCR 216 = 1999 (9 ) SCC 492 = 1999 (8 ) JT 513 = 1999 (6 ) SCALE 680

TULSI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY HYDERABAD .VS. STATE OF A.P. DOJ : 14/09/1999 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY -CEILING -EXEMPTION
CITATION(S) 1999 AIR 3667 = 1999 (2 ) SUPPL. SCR 354 = 2000 (1 ) SCC 533 = 1999 (7 ) JT 295 = 1999 (5 ) SCALE 486

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. .VS. KOKIYAT ESTATES DOJ : 13/09/1999 JUDGEMENT
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY -MORTGAGE -LAND ACQUISITION -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1999 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 307 = 1999 ( 8 ) SCC 419 = 1999 ( 6 ) JT 531 = 1999 ( 5 ) SCALE 461

RAM BAI .VS. C.I.T. DOJ : 18/02/1999 JUDGEMENT
INCOME TAX -REASSESSMENT -LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 1999 ( 1 ) SCR 760 = 1999 ( 3 ) SCC 30 = 1999 ( 1 ) JT 546 = 1999 ( 1 ) SCALE 554

SRI SRIKANTA D N WADIYAR .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. DOJ : 15/02/1999 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ROAD -TOWN PLANNING
CITATION(S) 1999 ( 3 ) SCALE 118

KANWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 30/10/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1999 AIR 317 = 1998 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 505 = 1998 ( 8 ) SCC 136 = 1998 ( 7 ) JT 397 = 1998 ( 6 ) SCALE 2

STATE OF J & K .VS. MOHAMMAD MATEEN WANI & ORS. DOJ : 23/07/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -J&K
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 2470 = 1998 ( 6 ) SCC 233 = 1998 ( 5 ) JT 137 = 1998 ( 4 ) SCALE 259

OM PRAKASH & ANR. .VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 15/07/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -JURISDICTION -SUPREME COURT
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 2504 = 1998 ( 3 ) SCR 643 = 1998 ( 6 ) SCC 1 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 601 = 1998 ( 4 ) SCALE 73

REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES .VS. MAHARSHI DAYANAND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY DOJ : 23/04/1998 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY -RELIEF -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1998 ( 6 ) SCC 536 = 1998 ( 8 ) JT 523 =

S.H. RANGAPPA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 20/04/1998 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION -DATE -PUBLICATION
CITATION(S) 1999 AIR 1509 = 1998 ( 5 ) SCC 509 = 1998 ( 6 ) JT 82 =

MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS .VS. VIRENDRA & ORS. DOJ : 31/03/1998 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LOCUS STANDI -COMPANY LAW
CITATION(S) 1998 ( 5 ) SCC 718 = 1998 ( 6 ) JT 623 =

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. M/S. .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 18/03/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WITHDRAWAL -NOTIFICATION -SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 1608 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCR 339 = 1998 ( 4 ) SCC 387 = 1998 ( 2 ) JT 536 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCALE 373

MARIYAPPA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 19/02/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LEGISLATION -AMENDMENT -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 1334 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 988 = 1998 ( 3 ) SCC 276 = 1998 ( 1 ) JT 734 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 672

STATE OF KERALA .VS. ANTONY FERNANDEZ DOJ : 12/02/1998 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PUBLICATION
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 2040 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 865 = 1998 ( 3 ) SCC 556 = 1998 ( 1 ) JT 729 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 605

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. JAINUL ISLAM DOJ : 21/01/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LEGISLATION -U P
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 1028 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 254 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 467 = 1998 ( 1 ) JT 231 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 185

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. JAINUL ISLAM DOJ : 21/01/1998 JUDGEMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -RIGHT TO EQUALITY -LAND ACQUISITION -U P
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 1028 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 254 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 467 = 1998 ( 1 ) JT 231 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 185

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHITTOOR .VS. L. KAMALAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. K. KRISHNAMACHARI DOJ : 19/01/1998 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -URBAN LAND -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 781 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 1153 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 385 = 1998 ( 1 ) JT 141 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 133

HASANALI WALIMCHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 06/01/1998 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 700 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 1 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 388 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCALE 93

AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY & ANR. .VS. GOVERNOR OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WITHDRAWAL -POWERS -STATE
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 477 = 1997 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 143 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCC 591 = 1997 ( 9 ) JT 659 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE 376

AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY & ANR. .VS. GOVERNOR OF U.P. & ORS. DOJ : 03/12/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -DENOTIFICATION -POWERS -STATE
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 477 = 1997 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 143 = 1998 ( 1 ) SCC 591 = 1997 ( 9 ) JT 659 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE 376

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI .VS. MOTI LAL & ORS. DOJ : 21/11/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -MISTAKE -INJUNCTIONS
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 1450 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 69 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 356 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE 167

MEKALA RAJA REDDY (DIED) THR. M.S. REDDY .VS. C.I.T. DOJ : 19/11/1997 ORDER
INCOME TAX -INTEREST -COMPENSATION -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE SP20

STATE OF BIHAR .VS. D.N. SINGH (DEAD) DOJ : 13/11/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMMISSIONER -POWERS -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 322 = 1997 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 140 = 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 572 = 1997 ( 9 ) JT 104 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE 21

EUGENIO MISQUITA .VS. STATE OF GOA DOJ : 29/09/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PERIOD -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3939 = 1997 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 362 = 1997 ( 8 ) SCC 47 = 1997 ( 8 ) JT 317 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCALE 328

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. OM PRAKASH BHASIN (D) DOJ : 25/09/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 2898 = 1997 SUPPL. SCR 297 = 1997 ( 8 ) JT 309 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCALE 277

KARAN SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 24/09/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3889 = 1997 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 237 = 1997 ( 8 ) SCC 186 = 1997 ( 8 ) JT 257 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCALE 255

SATPAL .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 24/09/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3882 = 1997 (11 ) SCC 423 = 1997 ( 8 ) JT 213 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCALE 220

H.M. KELOGIRAO .VS. GOVT. OF A.P. DOJ : 24/09/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 245 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCC 722 = 1997 ( 8 ) JT 306 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCALE 273

M.C.D. .VS. LICHHO DEVI DOJ : 01/09/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -STAY -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3474 = 1997 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 662 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCC 430 = 1997 ( 7 ) JT 694 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCALE 710

MAHADEO .VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS. DOJ : 31/07/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -NOTICE
CITATION(S) 1998 ( 4 ) JT 437 =

STATE OF W.B. .VS. SAMARENDRA NATH PAUL DOJ : 09/07/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING -NOTICE -W B
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2995 = 1997 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 160 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 492 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 221 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 618

TOTA RAM .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 09/07/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -COMPENSATION -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 184 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 280 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 231 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 721

W.B. HOUSING BOARD .VS. BRIJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA DOJ : 09/07/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING -NOTICE -W B
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2745 = 1997 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 22 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 207 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 169 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 590

W.B. HOUSING BOARD .VS. BHANWAR LAL MUNDHRA DOJ : 09/07/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -ORDER -W B
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2989 = 1997 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 172 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 151 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 192 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 650

K.G. PADMANABHA PRABHU .VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DOJ : 07/07/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -TREES -COMPENSATION -ELECTRICITY LAW
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 410 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 447 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 505 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 406 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCALE 9

IRSHAD ALI .VS. HAZI ABDUL SUKHUR MOZUMDAR DOJ : 07/07/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -SHARES
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 472 = 1997 ( 7 ) SCC 88 = 1997 ( 7 ) JT 36 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCALE 225

K. SHANTHARAJ .VS. M.L. NAGARAJA DOJ : 09/05/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -LIMITATION LAW -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2925 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 389 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 37 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 680 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 379

U.O.I. .VS. CHAIN SINGH DOJ : 08/05/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PROPERTY -COMPENSATION -J&K
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3000 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 293 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 305 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 490 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 259

STATE OF KERALA .VS. M. BHASKARAN PILLAI DOJ : 05/05/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SALE -AUCTION SALE -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2703 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 87 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 432 = 1997 ( 6 ) JT 22 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 295

YELAMANCHI RANGA RAO .VS. STATE OF ORISSA DOJ : 05/05/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -APPLICATION -PERIOD
CITATION(S) 1998 AIR 178 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 83 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 468 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 612 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 297

R. VARADARAJAN .VS. THIRUMANGAI NAIDU DOJ : 05/05/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -NOTICE -T N
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2699 = 1997 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 94 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 328 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 620 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 361

MEHARBAN .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 30/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -BELTING SYSTEM -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2664 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1149 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 54 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 645 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 363

U.O.I. .VS. RISAL SINGH DOJ : 29/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COURT INTERFERENCE -SUPREME COURT -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1105 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 288 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 521 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 294

SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR .VS. KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO DOJ : 29/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 625 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1107 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 41 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 580 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 326

U.O.I. .VS. MANGATU RAM DOJ : 29/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -BELTING SYSTEM -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2704 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1121 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 59 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 627 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 356

D-BLOCK ASHOK NAGAR (SAHIBABAD) PLOT HOLDERS ASSON. REGD. .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 29/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2981 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1096 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 77 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 522 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 270

U.O.I. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA N .VS. A. AJIT SINGH S/O S. CHET SINGH R/O NO. 19 FAIZ BAZAR DARYAG DOJ : 29/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2669 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1117 = 1997 ( 6 ) SCC 50 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 623 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 335

A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. HYDERABAD .VS. P. VENKAIAH DOJ : 28/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SALE DEED
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2600 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 1054 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 128 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 362 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 154

ABHEY RAM (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 22/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -STAY -NOTIFICATION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2564 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 931 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 421 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 354 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 193

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & SUB-COLLECTOR GADWAL .VS. SREELATHA BHOOPAL DOJ : 21/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SALE DEED -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2552 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 875 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 628 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 383 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 14

HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD .VS. MAHA SINGH DOJ : 21/04/1997 ORDER
SERVICE LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2553 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 899 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 324 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 414 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCALE 250

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KHEDA .VS. VASUDEV CHANDRASHANKAR DOJ : 08/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 745 = 1997 (11 ) SCC 218 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 741 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 613

U.O.I. .VS. KARAM SINGH DOJ : 07/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2655 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 686 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 180 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 745 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 672

STATE OF W.B. .VS. ARUN KUMAR BASU DOJ : 04/04/1997 ORDER
LAND LAW -TENANCY -LAND ACQUISITION -W B
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 5 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 653 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 317 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 106 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 720

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. SHIVABAI DOJ : 04/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -LIMITATION LAW -A P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2642 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 647 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 710 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 123 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 751

L.N. VENKATESAN .VS. STATE OF T.N. DOJ : 04/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -INTERIM ORDER -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2426 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 661 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 309 = 1997 ( 5 ) JT 104 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 695

S. GURDIAL SINGH .VS. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST DOJ : 02/04/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PURPOSE -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2573 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 516 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 138 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 650 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 603

G. RAMESAN .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 31/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -BELTING METHOD
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2159 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 453 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 183 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 592 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 540

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPRN. ALIGARH .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 27/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -SALE DEED -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3675 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 389 = 1997 ( 5 ) SCC 148 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 555 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 539

S.P. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY .VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. DOJ : 26/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SUIT -INJUNCTIONS -DE ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2076 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 370 = 1997 (11 ) SCC 250 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 594 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 514

JAI PARKASH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 19/03/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2237 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCR 88 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 510 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 112 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 161

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. UDAI RAM (DEAD) DOJ : 17/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -ACT -AMENDMENT -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 2 ) SCR 1167 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 182 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 302 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 346

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JAL NIGAM CENTRAL STORES DIVISION U.P. .VS. SURESHA NAND JUYAL @ MUSA RAM DOJ : 14/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -WRIT PETITION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2180 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCR 1128 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 224 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 189 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 340

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD .VS. P.M. MALLAPPA DOJ : 14/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -NOTIFICATION -DATE
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 3661 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCR 1131 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCC 429 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 191 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 341

STATE OF M.P. .VS. BRIESH KUMAR AWASTHI DOJ : 10/03/1997 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -INTERIM INJUNCTION -LAND ACQUISITION -M P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2104 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCR 907 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCC 472 = 1997 ( 3 ) JT 734 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 110

KANDENKUTTY .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 10/03/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -WITHDRAWAL -NOTIFICATION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2167 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCR 905 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 336 = 1997 ( 4 ) JT 80 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCALE 105

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 10/02/1997 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SECURITY -EMERGENCY -PUBLIC SAFETY
CITATION(S) 1997 (1 ) SCR 1056 = 1997 (4 ) SCC 511 = 1997 (2 ) JT 581 = 1997 (2 ) SCALE 26

U.O.I. .VS. SHER SINGH DOJ : 07/02/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1796 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 1048 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCC 555 = 1997 ( 2 ) JT 659 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCALE 165

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SITA RAM DOJ : 03/02/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -URBAN DEVELOPMENT -NOTIFICATION -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1104 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 859 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCC 522 = 1997 ( 2 ) JT 501 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCALE 53

GURLINGAPPA .VS. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GULBARG DOJ : 28/01/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1750 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 652 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCC 627 = 1997 ( 2 ) JT 400 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 746

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. JOGINDER SINGH DOJ : 24/01/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 528 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCC 628 = 1997 ( 2 ) JT 102 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 535

A.P. SAREEN .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 13/01/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DELAY -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1284 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 210 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 359 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 357

DHARAM PAL GOEL (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 13/01/1997 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -DENOTIFICATION -SCHOOL -BUILDING
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1800 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCR 231 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCC 186 = 1997 ( 2 ) JT 622 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 483

JASPAL SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 18/12/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -BUSINESS -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1996 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 368 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 640 = 1997 ( 1 ) JT 401 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 210

STATE OF GUJARAT .VS. RAMA RANA DOJ : 13/12/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MULTIPLIER METHOD -CROP
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1845 = 1996 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 102 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 693 = 1997 ( 1 ) JT 444 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 159

MANIPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD. .VS. COLLECTOR OF HAILAKANDI DOJ : 13/12/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -SALE DEED -ASSAM
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1779 = 1996 (10 ) SUPPL. SCR 108 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 673 = 1996 (11 ) JT 535 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 221

NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPN. .VS. HARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL DOJ : 09/12/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -TOWN PLANNING -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1701 = 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 701 = 1997 ( 4 ) SCC 199 = 1996 (11 ) JT 548 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCALE 192

BHUPINDER SINGH .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 04/12/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -VALIDITY -RAILWAYS -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 642 = 1996 (11 ) JT 720 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 713

TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPN. .VS. S.P. SINGH DOJ : 26/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 211 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 249 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 20 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 27

SATYA PAL .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 26/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -U P
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2235 = 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 203 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 117 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 285 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 4

ADAVALA SATHAIAH .VS. SPL. DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION UNIT I DOJ : 26/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -NOTICE -A P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 209 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 130 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 19 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 21

BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 22/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -ACQUISITION -VALIDITY -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2149 = 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 156 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 483 = 1997 ( 1 ) JT 220 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 241

SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SANTOSH SHARMA SMT. DOJ : 22/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEVELOPMENT FEE -DEDUCTION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1791 = 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 171 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 637 = 1996 (11 ) JT 254 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 280

C. PADMA .VS. DY. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF T.N. DOJ : 22/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -RESTITUTION -PUBLIC PURPOSE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 158 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 627 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 263 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 278

BANSILAL FARMS .VS. UMARANI BOSE DOJ : 22/11/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -TANK -FISHERY -W B
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 131 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 191 = 1996 (10 ) JT 617 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 513

MRINALINI ROY RATNA PROVA MONDAL .VS. STATE OF W.B. DOJ : 21/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2244 = 1996 ( 9 ) SUPPL. SCR 70 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 113 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 98 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCALE 5

JOSE ANTONIO CRUZ DOS R. RODRIGUESE .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DOJ : 20/11/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -DETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1915 = 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 910 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 746 = 1996 (10 ) JT 573 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 498

RAMNIKLAL N. BHUTTA .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 19/11/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PUBLIC INTEREST -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1236 = 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 787 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 134 = 1996 (10 ) JT 452 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 417

MOHAN SINGH .VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA DOJ : 07/11/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DATE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 569 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 132 = 1996 (10 ) JT 311 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 251

U.O.I. .VS. SITARAM SHIVHANDRAI GARODIA DOJ : 04/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 389 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 578 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 93 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 642

ABDUL MAJEED SAHIB .VS. DISTT. COLLECTOR DOJ : 01/11/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -LIMITATION LAW -DAMAGES
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 2130 = 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 347 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 297 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 207 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 594

MURARI .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 01/11/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WRIT PETITION -TOWN PLANNING -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 313 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 15 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 742 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 105

P. RAJAN .VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DOJ : 25/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 3 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 330 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 35 = 1997 ( 8 ) SCALE 436

INDIRA SOHAN LAL (DEAD) SMT. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 25/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1907 = 1996 ( 8 ) SUPPL. SCR 1 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 83 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 65 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 435

PRESIDENT A.P.M.C. TALUKA DARWHA DISTT. YAVATMAL MAHARASHTRA .VS. MANIKANT DOJ : 11/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 7 ) SUPPL. SCR 621 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 539 = 1997 (10 ) JT 490 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 228

STATE OF BIHAR .VS. NILMANI SAHU DOJ : 07/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -INHERENT POWER -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 7 ) SUPPL. SCR 236 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 528 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 625 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 227

U.O.I. .VS. PRAVEEN GUPTA DOJ : 04/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PURPOSE -MASTER PLAN & SITES CHANGE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 170 = 1996 ( 7 ) SUPPL. SCR 201 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 78 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 624 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 819

LAXMANRAO BAPURAO JADHAV .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 01/10/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -BOMBAY MUMBAI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 334 = 1996 ( 7 ) SUPPL. SCR 161 = 1997 ( 3 ) SCC 493 = 1996 (10 ) JT 32 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCALE 15

STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. M/S. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 25/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -LACHES -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 7 ) SUPPL. SCR 6 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 698 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 429 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 632

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE BY ITS SECY. .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMISSIONER DOJ : 23/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 662 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 629 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 432 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 625

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI ORAI DISTRICT JALAUN .VS. AMAR SINGH DOJ : 20/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 629 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 541 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 333 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 729

SECRETARY JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JAIPUR .VS. DAULAT MAL JAIN DOJ : 20/09/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ALLOTMENT -PLOT -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 584 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 35 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 387 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 135

MOHD. ALI & ORS .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 19/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1998 ( 9 ) SCC 480 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 435 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 478

469. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SATBIR SINGH DOJ : 19/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LEGISLATURE -JUDICIARY -STATUTE LAW
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 1467 = 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 529 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 462 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 382 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 470

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. MAHAVIR HOUSING COOP. SOCIETY JAIPUR DOJ : 18/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AMENDMENT -AWARD -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 491 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 229 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 406 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 404

GHEEVARGHESE MATHEW .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 17/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 45 = 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 441 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 625 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 463 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 634

BIKRAM SINGH .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DOJ : 12/09/1996 ORDER
INCOME TAX -LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -REVENUE RECEIPT
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 214 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 243 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 678 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 359

STATE OF RAJASTHAN .VS. D.R. LAXMI DOJ : 12/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -AWARD -NATURE OF LAND
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 221 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 445 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 327 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 316

BASANT KUMAR .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 12/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -COMPENSATION -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 231 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 542 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 307 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 354

NANDATAI .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 10/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 776 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 407 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 371 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 27

U.O.I. .VS. HIRA LAL DOJ : 06/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -ADVOCATE
CITATION(S) 1996 (10 ) SCC 574 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 350 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 675

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY .VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. DOJ : 06/09/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LACHES -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 482 = 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 551 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 501 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 16 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 379

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY .VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. DOJ : 06/09/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -CHALLENGE -LANDLORD -TENANT
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 482 = 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 551 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 501 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 16 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 379

WINKY DILAWARI .VS. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AMRITSAR DOJ : 03/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTICE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 502 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 644 = 1996 (11 ) JT 49 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 146

BENOY MAZUMDAR .VS. COLLECTOR OF CACHAR DOJ : 03/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PRECEDENT -HIGH COURTS -ASSAM
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 497 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 690 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 434 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 10

CHANDRAGAUDA RAMGONDA PATIL .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 02/09/1996 ORDER
LIMITATION LAW -CONDONATION OF DELAY -LAND ACQUISITION -RESTITUTION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 445 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 405 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 258 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 82

U.O.I. .VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 02/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 441 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 454 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 288 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 17

ARULMIGHU LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE SINGIRIGUDI .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 02/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -TITLE -REFERENCE -COURTS
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 443 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 408 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 432 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 23

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. NASIRUZZAMAN DOJ : 02/09/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -RES JUDICATA -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 435 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 424 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 429 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 28

SRI SAUNU .VS. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION DOJ : 28/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -PURCHASER
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 313 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 163 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 95 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 504

POSHETTY .VS. STATE OF A.P. DOJ : 28/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -NOTICE -A P
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 327 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 213 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 250 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 502

VENKATASWAMAPPA .VS. SPL. DY. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) DOJ : 28/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -NOTIFICATION -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 503 = 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 330 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 128 = 1996 (10 ) JT 262 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 681

SANTOSH KUMARI .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 28/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEVELOPMENT CHARGES -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 315 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 631 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 532 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 674

VENKATASWAMAPPA .VS. SPL. DY. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) DOJ : 28/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLICATION -NOTIFICATION -GAZETTE
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 503 = 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 330 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 128 = 1996 (10 ) JT 262 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 681

STATE OF KARNATAKA .VS. D.C. NANJUDAIAH DOJ : 26/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -ENQUIRY
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 222 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 619 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 471 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 117

U.O.I. .VS. SUBE RAM DOJ : 26/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 219 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 69 = 1996 (10 ) JT 529 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCALE 119

GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .VS. NAROTTAMBHAI MORARBHAI DOJ : 23/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 199 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 159 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 536 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 654

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SRIRANGAPATNAM .VS. NAGEGOWDA DOJ : 23/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -CIVIL JUDGE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 191 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 368 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 659 =

U.O.I. .VS. DHANWANTI DEVI DOJ : 21/08/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -J&K
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 32 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 44 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 306 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 431

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. VIRUPAX SHANKAR NADAGOUDA DOJ : 21/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MULTIPLIER METHOD
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 25 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 124 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 365 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 288

RAMESH DUTT .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 21/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LOSS -BUSINESS
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2831 = 1996 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 17 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 160 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 507 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 257

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DHARWARD .VS. TAJAR HANIFABI DOJ : 19/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 748 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 627 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 540 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 663

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. JAIPAL SINGH DOJ : 14/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 452 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 706 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 170 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 321

SURAT SINGH (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 13/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 640 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 162 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 336 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 230

STATE OF BIHAR .VS. MADHESHWAR PRASAD DOJ : 08/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SALE DEED
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 415 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 197 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 501 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 287

STATE OF BIHAR .VS. RATAN LAL SAHU DOJ : 08/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -BIHAR
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3500 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 400 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 635 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 366 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 83

AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. .VS. SECY. RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ GOVT. OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 08/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION LAW -STAY -COURTS
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3501 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 424 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 475 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 327 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 217

STATE OF GUJARAT .VS. DEVRAJBHAI CHHAGANBHAI DOJ : 08/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 1997 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 409 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 273 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 459 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 140

STATE OF M.P. .VS. HARISHANKAR GOEL DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -M P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3478 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 349 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 487 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 303 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 39

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE .VS. BELEKAL KRISHNA BHAT DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3486 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 372 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 39 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 359 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 96

BALDEV SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB THRU. COLLECTOR DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -EVIDENCE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3498 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 359 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 37 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 280 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 42

JHANDOO (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 379 = 1996 SUPPL. SCR 377 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 439 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 98

KARAN SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -INTERFERENCE -SUPREME COURT -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 375 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 170 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 494 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 100

CHINTAMAN .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 448 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 368 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 36 = 1996 SUPPL. JT 461 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 101

GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL .VS. M. DURAI KANNAN (DEAD) DOJ : 07/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -AIDED SCHOOL
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2803 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 356 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCC 464 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 80 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 36

AJAY KRISHAN SHINGHAL .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 06/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MASTER PLAN -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2677 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 319 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 721 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 301 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 29

NAIHATI MUNICIPALITY .VS. CHINMOYEE MUKHERJEE DOJ : 06/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -HAWKERS -REHABILITATION
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 378 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 316 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 632 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 359 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 1

NAIHATI MUNICIPALITY .VS. CHINMOYEE MUKHERJEE DOJ : 06/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MUNICIPALITIES -FUND
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 378 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 316 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 632 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 359 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 1

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. SATYABHAMA BAI SMT. DOJ : 05/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SALE DEED -VALIDITY
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 277 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 751 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 38

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. BALKRISHNA DOJ : 05/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -POSSESSION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 283 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 321 = 1997 (10 ) JT 731 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 227

RATAN KUMAR TANDON .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 01/08/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2710 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 259 = 1997 ( 2 ) SCC 161 = 1997 (10 ) JT 492 = 1996 ( 6 ) SCALE 176

MALWA OIL MILLS M/S. .VS. STATE OF M.P. DOJ : 25/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -SALE -STOCK EXCHANGE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 38 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 259 = 1996 ( 8 ) JT 44 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 580

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. SABHU RAM DOJ : 25/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -RETURNING OFFICER
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 41 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 544 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 118 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 577

RAJMANI .VS. COLLECTOR RAIPUR DOJ : 25/07/1996 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION -SETTING ASIDE -EXPARTE ORDER
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 59 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 701 = 1996 ( 9 ) JT 1 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 700

M. GOVINDA RAJU .VS. SPECIAL LAND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFCER DOJ : 24/07/1996 ORDER
COURT FEE -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2660 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 13 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 547 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 109 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 558

STATE OF W.B. .VS. LOHIT KUMAR ROY DOJ : 24/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -NOTIFICATION -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3482 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 11 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 620 = 1997 (10 ) JT 481 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 543

KASHI VIDYAPITH .VS. MOTILAL DOJ : 24/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -OTHER AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2705 = 1996 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 5 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 456 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 98 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 560

SPECIAL TEHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION KERALA .VS. K.V. AYISUMMA DOJ : 23/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REVIEW PETITION -LIMITATION LAW -CONDONATION OF DELAY
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2750 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 848 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 634 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 204 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 548

SRI NRIPATI GHOSHAL FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR .VS. PREMAVATI KAPUR (DEAD) DOJ : 23/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2586 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 850 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 386 = 1996 (11 ) JT 84 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 549

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI BULANDSHAHR .VS. GANGA SAHAI DOJ : 23/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3483 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 855 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 169 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 120 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 579

RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDI .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. THE SECY. DOJ : 15/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -AWARD -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3457 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 581 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 60 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 475

G. NARAYAN RAO .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 15/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SALE DEED
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3469 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 584 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 607 = 1996 ( 6 ) JT 721 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 476

UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) .VS. TARACHAND DOJ : 12/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2777 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 531 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 574 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 206 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 685

STATE OF RAJASTHAN .VS. RAJ SINGH DOJ : 08/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -APPEAL -LIMITATION LAW -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2812 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 210 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 516 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 194 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 688

U.O.I. .VS. SWARAN SINGH DOJ : 08/07/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 462 = 1996 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 205 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 501 = 1996 ( 7 ) JT 431 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE SP5

PRIME COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 08/07/1996 ORDER
GRAM PANCHAYAT -LAND ACQUISITION -SALE -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE SP15

SCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNION .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 09/05/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 647 = 1996 (10 ) SCC 150 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCALE 75

RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. .VS. ZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIA DOJ : 09/05/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMPANY LAW -SETTLEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 579 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 114 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 340

BAI SHAKRIBEN (DEAD) BY NATWAR MELSINGH .VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 06/05/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3323 = 1996 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 369 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 533 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 597 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 636

PROPERTY OWNERS ASSON. .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 01/05/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING -TOWN PLANNING -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 230 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 49 = 1996 ( 6 ) JT 23 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 225

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. KAMLA DOJ : 30/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -COURTS
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 313 = 1996 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 106 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 535 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 450 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 592

MANGAT RAM .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 22/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3347 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 634 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 664 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 470 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 667

U.O.I. .VS. BANT RAM (DEAD) DOJ : 22/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3327 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 618 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 537 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 637 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 445

VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR TENALI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. MOVVA RANGA RAO DOJ : 22/04/1996 ORDER
LEGAL PROFESSION -ADVOCATE -FEE -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2200 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 627 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 671 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 427 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 316

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. DES RAJ DOJ : 18/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 562 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 557 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 81 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 450

IMPROVEMENT TRUST MOGA .VS. MANCHANDA SOAP WORKS DOJ : 16/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -TOWN PLANNING -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2019 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 402 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 686 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 20 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 171

IMPROVEMENT TRUST MOGA .VS. MANCHANDA SOAP WORKS DOJ : 16/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTICE -PUBLICATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2019 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 402 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 686 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 20 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 171

U.O.I. .VS. SHER SINGH DOJ : 15/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3343 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 336 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 549 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 402 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 322

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. MARUTI LAXMAN DOJ : 15/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -HIGH COURTS -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 324 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 595 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 73 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 298

U.O.I. .VS. RATTAN SINGH DOJ : 12/04/1996 ORDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENQUIRY
CITATION(S) 1997 AIR 147 = 1996 SUPPL. SCR 296 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 423 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCALE 299

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST JODHPUR .VS. GOKUL NARAIN DOJ : 10/04/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1819 = 1996 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 148 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 178 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 446 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 721

HUKAM CHAND .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 02/04/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REMEDY -COMPENSATION -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3275 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 1087 = 1996 ( 5 ) SCC 164 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 328 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 669

RAFIQ MOHD. .VS. STATE GOVT. M.P. DOJ : 29/03/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 482 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 457 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 300

GOVT. OF A.P. .VS. H.E.H. THE NIZAM HYDERABAD DOJ : 22/03/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3142 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 772 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 282 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 629 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 140

KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. RAM PARKASH DOJ : 21/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 767 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 269 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 89 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 336

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD .VS. MALE PULLAMMA DOJ : 21/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 763 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 247 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 135 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 341

LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHHAL DOJ : 19/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 668 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 188 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 239 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 555

SUBHASHGIR KHUSHALGIR GOSAVI .VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 18/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -TOWN PLANNING -PUBLIC PURPOSE -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3169 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 520 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 282 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 154 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 339

RAJASHEKAR SANKAPPA TARADANDI .VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 15/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3222 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 642 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 153 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 295

MASIPATLA RAGHAVULU .VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAO PEDDAPALLI DOJ : 15/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3130 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 492 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 242 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 678 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 189

ISHWARLAL PREMCHAND SHAH .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 15/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AGREEMENT -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1616 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 510 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 174 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 208 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 495

BASAVVA (SMT.) .VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 15/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -DEVELOPMENT FEE -DEDUCTION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3168 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 500 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 640 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 580 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 299

V.G. KULKARNI .VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 15/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3171 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 506 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 301 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 220 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 297

HOOKIYAR SINGH .VS. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MORADABAD DOJ : 14/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3207 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 422 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 766 = 1996 ( 4 ) JT 251 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 516

RAM PIARI .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR SOLAN DOJ : 12/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDUCTION -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3140 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 307 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 338 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 758 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 246

GURNAM SINGH .VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL KAITHAL DOJ : 12/03/1996 ORDER
GRAM PANCHAYAT -LAND ACQUISITION -TENANCY -EJECTMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 298 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 290 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 561 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 110

AMBEY DEVI .VS. STATE OF BIHAR DOJ : 12/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1513 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 303 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 84 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 674 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 121

U.O.I. .VS. JASWANT RAI KOCHHAR DOJ : 11/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PURPOSE -HOUSING -CHANGE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1352 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 206 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 491 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 671 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 119

VITTHALBHAI BAKORBHAI (DEAD) .VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAPITAL PROJECT DOJ : 01/03/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -MULTIPLIER METHOD
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3150 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 173 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 592 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 394 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 843

PRATAP .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DOJ : 27/02/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1296 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 1088 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 1 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 759 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 543

ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAZAK .VS. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY DOJ : 15/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1350 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 747 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 126 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 377 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 906

STATE OF U.P. .VS. RAM KUMARI DEVI DOJ : 15/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3370 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 749 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 577 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 380 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 627

PUTTU LALA (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 14/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -POSSESSION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 638 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 99 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 53 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 586

BALMOKAND KHATRI EDUCATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL TRUST AMRITSAR .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 14/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1239 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 643 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 212 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 60 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 577

U.O.I. .VS. AJAIB SINGH DOJ : 12/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3148 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 460 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 638 = 1996 ( 6 ) JT 73 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 594

REV. FATHER BRAIN E FERNANDES .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 12/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 452 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 567 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 641 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 452

SAVITRI DEVI .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 12/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 477 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 729 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 665 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 487

OFFICER ON SPL. DUTY LAND ACQUISITION .VS. SHAH MANILAL CHANDULAL DOJ : 09/02/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -CONDITION PRECEDENT -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 366 = 1996 ( 9 ) SCC 414 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 278 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 153

T.N. HOUSING BOARD .VS. A. VISWAM (DEAD) DOJ : 09/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3377 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 402 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 259 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 549 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 418

SENJEEVANAGAR MEDICAL & HEALTH EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING .VS. MOHD. ABDUL WAHAB DOJ : 08/02/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PUBLICATION -A P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3360 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 308 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 600 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 173 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 82

M.B. GOPALA KRISHNA .VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION DOJ : 07/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3149 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 248 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 594 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 595 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 132

PITAMBAR HEMLAL BADGUJAR (DEAD) .VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHULE DOJ : 05/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3117 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 130 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 554 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 546 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 270

STATE OF ORISSA .VS. RAJAKISHORE DAS DOJ : 05/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -BUILDING -UNAUTHORISED
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1508 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 141 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 221 = 1996 ( 3 ) JT 560 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCALE 68

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. DIGAMBER BHIMASHANKAR TANDALE DOJ : 02/02/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 90 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 583 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 528 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 271

SURENDRA KUMAR .VS. PHOOLCHAND DOJ : 02/02/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -PARTITION -JOINT FAMILY
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1148 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCR 15 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 491 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 127 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 644

SESHAN .VS. SPL. TEHSILDAR & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SPICOT PUDUKKOTTAI DOJ : 30/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 1058 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 89 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 166 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE SP44

STATE OF U.P. .VS. RAJENDRA SINGH DOJ : 25/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1564 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 984 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 347 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 112 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 814

YADAVRAO P. PATHADE (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 24/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 965 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 570 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 240 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 96

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. .VS. SHARDABEN DOJ : 19/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMPUTATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3346 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 820 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 93 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 453 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 311

U.P. JAL NIGAM LUCKNOW THRU. ITS CHAIRMAN .VS. KALRA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. LUCKNOW DOJ : 17/01/1996 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1170 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 683 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 124 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 354 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 389

N. NARASIMHAIAH .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA / U.O.I. DOJ : 17/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -LIMITATION LAW -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 698 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 88 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 269 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 170

STATE OF T.N. .VS. L. KRISHNAN DOJ : 17/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PURPOSE -T N
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 708 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 450 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 660 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 621

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE .VS. V.T. VELU DOJ : 16/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 566 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 538 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 37 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 724

RAMESH SINGH (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 16/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3066 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 484 = 1996 ( 4 ) SCC 469 = 1996 ( 5 ) JT 467 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCALE 839

STATE OF M.P. .VS. HIRALAL DOJ : 15/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 SCR 480 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 669 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE SP35

IMPROVEMENT TRUST SANGRUR .VS. GURJIT SINGH SANDHU DOJ : 15/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1996 SCR 487 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 111 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 815

M.V.K. GUNDARAO .VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (L.A.O.) NARASARAOPET DOJ : 15/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3241 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 481 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 129 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 670 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 627

SAM HIRING CO. .VS. A.R. BHUJBAL & ORS. DOJ : 12/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING -SCHEME -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3008 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 475 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 18 = 1996 ( 2 ) JT 406 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 658

STATE OF KARNATAKA .VS. B.S. NANJUNDAIAH DOJ : 11/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTICE -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 379 = 1996 ( 8 ) SCC 49 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 631 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 625

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. .VS. RAJ KISHORE @ SAHU JENA DOJ : 09/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 306 = 1996 ( 3 ) SCC 44 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 617 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE SP34

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GDA .VS. JAN KALUAN SAMITI SHEOPURI GHAZIABAD DOJ : 09/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY -NOTIFICATION -PUBLICATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1045 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 307 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 365 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 568 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 448

RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI .VS. U.P. AVAS EVEN VIKAS PARISHAD LUCKNOW DOJ : 08/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 3274 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 211 = 1997 ( 9 ) SCC 116 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 475 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 370

ASTEKAAR NAGANAATHA RAO .VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 05/01/1996 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -AIRPORT
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1041 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCR 180 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 369 = 1996 ( 1 ) JT 245 =

U.O.I. THRU. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER CALCUTTA .VS. DULAL CHANDRA GHOSH DOJ : 15/12/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 792 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 331 = 1995 ( 9 ) JT 478 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 67

CHAMELI SINGH .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 15/12/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD -U P
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 1051 = 1995 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 827 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 549 = 1995 ( 9 ) JT 380 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 101

STATE OF KERALA .VS. M.M. ABDUL KHADER DOJ : 15/12/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 784 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 178 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE SP2

STATE OF KERALA .VS. ABRAHAM MATHEW DOJ : 15/12/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 174 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE SP3

KARANPURA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 14/12/1995 ORDER
MINES & MINERALS -COAL -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 2879 = 1995 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 684 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 393 = 1995 ( 9 ) JT 565 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCALE 74

JAI NARAIN & ORS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 29/11/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 697 = 1995 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 769 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 9 = 1995 ( 9 ) JT 323 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 664

SHAKUNTALABAI .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 23/11/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 618 = 1996 ( 2 ) SCC 152 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 501 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 693

SNEH PRABHA .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 15/11/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PURCHASE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 540 = 1995 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 264 = 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 426 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 267 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 393

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .VS. UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU & ORS. DOJ : 09/11/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 39 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 299 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 508 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 391

GENERAL MANAGER TELE COMMUNICATION & ANR. .VS. MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN & ORS. DOJ : 08/11/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 1 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 268 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 193 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 387

INDUMATI CHITALEY .VS. GOVT. OF INDIA DOJ : 01/11/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 531 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 701 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 219 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 63 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 300

STATE OF T.N. .VS. L. KRISHNAN DOJ : 01/11/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 497 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 663 = 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 250 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 1 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 221

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KALINADAI HYDO ELECTRIC PROJEC .VS. VASANT GUNDU BALE DOJ : 31/10/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 614 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 649 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 158 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 305

STATE OF KARNATAKA .VS. MALLINATH DOJ : 30/10/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 556 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 670 = 1995 ( 8 ) JT 154 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCALE 257

U.O.I. .VS. AJAIB SINGH DOJ : 20/09/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 270 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 831 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCC 323 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 544

AWADH BIHARI YADAV .VS. STATE OF BIHAR DOJ : 31/08/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -AWARD -BIHAR
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 122 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 197 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCC 31 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 248 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 74

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. PRITAM SINGH DOJ : 30/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 195 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 540 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 194

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE .VS. SRI DVAVAPPA DOJ : 29/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 145 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 584 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 189

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 29/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 152 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 538 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 545 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 182

STATE OF ORISSA .VS. DHOBEI SETHI DOJ : 29/08/1995 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LACHES -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 139 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 583 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 624 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 188

U.O.I. .VS. RANGILA RAM (DEAD) DOJ : 28/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 206 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 110 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 585 = 1995 ( 7 ) JT 655 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 178

STATE OF U.P. .VS. RATAN LAL DOJ : 28/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 113 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 539 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 190

STATE OF GUJARAT .VS. DAYA SHAMJI BHAI DOJ : 25/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AGREEMENT -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 133 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 88 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 746 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 475 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 248

STATE OF H.P. .VS. DHARAM DAS DOJ : 25/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -AWARD -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 127 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 74 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 683 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 519 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 220

H. KASHINATH .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 21/08/1995 JUDGEMENT
TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2510 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 834 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 647 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 769

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG SUB-DIVISION GADAG .VS. MATHAPATHI BASAVANNEWWA DOJ : 17/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -NOTIFICATION -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2492 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 807 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCC 355 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 242 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 39

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. N.S. TAKKALAKI DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 761 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 592 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 66

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. N.S. TAKKALAKI DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 761 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 592 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 66

STATE OF KERALA .VS. T.K. UDAYA SANKARAN DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 758 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 518 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 33

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. PUTTAIAH DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 136 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 782 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 577 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 657 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 176

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. SHARANABASAPPA SHIVAYOGAPPA TYAPAL DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 761 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 592 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 66

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MALAPRABHA DAM PROJECT SAUNDATTI .VS. MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELAVANKI DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MULTIPLIER METHOD
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 785 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 670 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 373 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 161

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. SHARANABASAPPA SHIVAYOGAPPA TYAPAL DOJ : 16/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 761 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 592 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 66

SHARADCHANDRA GANESH MULEY .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 14/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -LIMITATION LAW -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 61 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 693 = 1995 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 702 = 1995 ( 7 ) JT 317 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 25

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. RAMAN RAI DOJ : 14/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 699 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 610 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCALE 82

STATE OF KARNATAKA .VS. NARASIMHAMURTHY DOJ : 11/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -HOUSING -KARNATAKA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 90 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 649 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 524 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 375 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 853

PAINDER SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 08/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 572 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 310 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 726

PRIYA VART .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 07/08/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -DELHI
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2471 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 563 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 437 = 1995 ( 7 ) JT 358 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 723

OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL .VS. GOVT. OF T.N. DOJ : 02/08/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DECLARATION -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2398 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 461 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 206 = 1995 ( 7 ) JT 481 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 589

U.O.I. .VS. BUDH SINGH DOJ : 27/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 384 = 1995 ( 6 ) SCC 233 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 816

STATE OF ORISSA .VS. BRIJ LAL MISRA DOJ : 26/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -POTENTIAL VALUE -ORISSA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 221 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 354 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 203 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 592

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. GURDIAL SINGH DOJ : 26/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -CLASSIFICATION -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 351 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 331 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 594

ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE CHARKHI DADRI .VS. RAMJI LAL BAGLA DOJ : 26/07/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PURPOSE -NON COMPLIANCE -RESTORATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2329 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 335 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 272 = 1995 ( 5 ) JT 486 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 559

HASANALI KHANBHAI & SONS .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 26/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -GUJARAT
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 363 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 422 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 92 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 786

U.O.I. .VS. SUNIL CHANDRA SAHA DOJ : 25/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 316 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 311 = 1997 (10 ) JT 438 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 767

RAM KALI BHATTACHARJEE .VS. STATE OF W.B. DOJ : 25/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -LIMITATION LAW -W B
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 310 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 314 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 1 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 663

NAWAL SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 25/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -U P
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 307 = 1995 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 315 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 100 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 695

STATE OF U.P. .VS. KESHAV PRASAD SINGH DOJ : 25/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2480 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 329 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 587 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 96 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 783

HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN. LTD. .VS. SAKHRAM GOUR DOJ : 25/07/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 313 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 282 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 2 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 664

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. DIGAMBAR DOJ : 12/05/1995 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LACHES -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1991 = 1995 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 492 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 683 = 1995 ( 9 ) JT 310 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCALE 98

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. SHANTI PARSHAD JAIN DOJ : 10/05/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -BENEFIT OF AMENDMENT
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 532 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 607

CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. DOMINION LAND & INDUSTRIES LTD. DOJ : 09/05/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -BELTING METHOD -W B
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 121 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 231 = 1995 ( 5 ) JT 141 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 479

KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARNAL .VS. PARKASH WANTI (DEAD) DOJ : 09/05/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -TRIBUNAL -MAJORITY
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 136 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 159 = 1995 ( 5 ) JT 151 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 487

STATE OF BIHAR .VS. DHIRENDRA KUMAR DOJ : 27/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -JURISDICTION -COURTS
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1955 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 857 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 229 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 700

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN .VS. KISHAN DOJ : 27/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -OWNER -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1891 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 855 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 147 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 682

HARI NATH SHARMA (RAS) .VS. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DOJ : 25/04/1995 ORDER
CONTEMPT OF COURT -LAND ACQUISITION -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 252 =

BALRAM CHANDRA .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 24/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -DISTRICT JUDGE -POWERS
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1552 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 726 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 723 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 164

STATE OF ORISSA .VS. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. DOJ : 21/04/1995 JUDGEMENT
MINES & MINERALS -TAXATION -COAL -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1868 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 639 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 686 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 662 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 900

WARDINGTON LYNGDOH .VS. COLLECTOR MAWKYRWAT DOJ : 17/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE -CONDITION PRECEDENT -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2340 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 354 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 428 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 702

BUTA SINGH (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 17/04/1995 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -COURT FEE -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1945 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 359 = 1995 ( 5 ) SCC 284 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 392

RAMBHAI LAKHABAI BHAKT .VS. STATE OF GUJARAT DOJ : 10/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -HEARING
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1549 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 272 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 752 = 1995 ( 5 ) JT 192 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 172

GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU .VS. VASANTHA BAI DOJ : 07/04/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -LIMITATION LAW
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1778 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 258 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 423 = 1997 (10 ) JT 511 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 849

IMPROVEMENT TRUST PATIALA .VS. LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL DOJ : 31/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 113 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 724 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 113 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 590

BUTU PRASAD KUMBHAR .VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. DOJ : 30/03/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 76 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 225 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 428 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 539

JAGDISH SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 29/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 3 ) SCR 72 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 445 = 1997 (10 ) JT 545 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 703

C.W.T. CALCUTTA .VS. U.C. MEHATAB DOJ : 29/03/1995 ORDER
WEALTH TAX -ASSETS -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1925 = 1997 (10 ) SCC 252 =

KARTAR SINGH @ NARANJAN SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 21/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -RESTITUTION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1726 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 922 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 101 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 422 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 598

GULZARA SINGH .VS. COLLECTOR LUDHIANA DOJ : 07/03/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MORTGAGE -REDEMPTION -NAZOOL LAND
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 547 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 253 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 26 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 141

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD LUCKNOW (U.P.) .VS. PUSHPA LATA AWASTHI DOJ : 06/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PURCHASER
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 513 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 573 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 479

MAHANT SHREO NATH CHELA BABA PURAN NATH .VS. STATE OF HARYANA THRU. COLLECTOR DOJ : 01/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -HIGH COURTS
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 426 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 426 = 1997 (10 ) JT 577 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 362

GURDIAL SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 01/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -JURISDICTION -COURTS
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2283 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 420 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 333 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 87 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 235

TEJA SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 01/03/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTICE -OWNERSHIP
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1547 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 433 = 1995 ( 4 ) SCC 540 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 114 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 108

S.A. JAIN COLLEGE TRUST & MANAGING SOCIETY .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 24/02/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -HARYANA
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 316 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 74 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 510 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 95

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. SANT JOGINDER SINGH / KISHAN SINGH DOJ : 22/02/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2181 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 242 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 475 = 1995 ( 3 ) JT 21 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 121

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. SATINDER BIR SINGH DOJ : 22/02/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -NOTICE -PUNJAB
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 255 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 330 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 572 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 97

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. PANDURANG K PANGARE DOJ : 13/02/1995 JUDGEMENT
CONTEMPT OF COURT -PROHIBITION -CONSTRUCTION -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1202 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCR 49 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 119 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 334 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 679

BAGAWATI TEA ESTATES LTD. .VS. GOVT. OF INDIA DOJ : 03/02/1995 JUDGEMENT
FOREST LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -JANMAM RIGHT -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 209 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 832 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 452 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 274 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 429

P. RAM REDDY .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI DOJ : 27/01/1995 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 584 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 305 = 1995 ( 1 ) JT 593 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 332

U.O.I. .VS. PRATAP KAUR DOJ : 27/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PETITION -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 670 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 263 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 569 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCALE 118

MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 24/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2185 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 535 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 401 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 379 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 826

G. KRISHNA MURTHY .VS. STATE OF ORISSA DOJ : 19/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1436 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 733 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 683 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 684

D. KRISHNA VENI .VS. STATE OF ORISSA DOJ : 19/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 488 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 734 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 512 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 683

KHANNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL DOJ : 18/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 404 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 557 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 57 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 417

MIRZA MAJID HUSSAIN .VS. STATE OF M.P. DOJ : 18/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REFERENCE
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2243 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 401 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 422 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 93 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 409

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. GURCHARAN SINGH DOJ : 18/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 AIR 106 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 408 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 637 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 345 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 530

UMED INDUSTRIES & LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DOJ : 17/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 348 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 563 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 495 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 309

NIKKI .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 17/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -CHANDIGARH
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 341 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 428 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 315

NUCLEAR POWER CORPN. .VS. GAJRAJ SINGH DOJ : 17/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -APPEAL -PARTY IN PERSON -DISMISSAL
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1606 = 1996 (11 ) SCC 403 =

U.O.I. .VS. SHIVKUMAR BHARGAVA DOJ : 17/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -ALTERNATIVE SITE -OWNERSHIP
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 812 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 354 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 427 = 1995 ( 6 ) JT 274 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 316

STATE OF KERALA .VS. BETTY W/O L.J. MANI DOJ : 17/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE -KERALA
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 357 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 706 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 353

U.O.I. .VS. B.V. SAROJA DOJ : 13/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 250 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 451 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 309

RAJ KUMAR .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 11/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 184 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCC 121 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 224

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) P.W.D. SCHEMES VIJAYAWADA .VS. M.A. JABBAR DOJ : 11/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -INTEREST -AWARD
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 762 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 180 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 142 = 1995 ( 1 ) JT 383 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 144

V.M. SALGOACAR & BROS. LTD. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 11/01/1995 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 188 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 302 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 220

R.B. TUNKI SAH BAIDYANATHPD SARAIYAGANJ MUZAFFARPUR .VS. C.I.T. BIHAR -I PATNA DOJ : 13/12/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1996 ( 7 ) SCC 93 =

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. AVTAR SINGH DOJ : 09/12/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 450 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 383 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCALE 329

BAJIRAO T. KOTE (DEAD) .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 08/12/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 413 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 442 = 1995 ( 1 ) JT 85 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCALE 138

U.O.I. .VS. GURBACHAN SINGH DOJ : 01/12/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 292 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCALE 62

BAKHTAWAR SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 29/11/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 196 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 495 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 32

TARLOCHAN SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 29/11/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 6 ) SUPPL. SCR 200 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 424 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 91 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCALE 321

STATE OF T.N. .VS. ANANTHI AMMAL DOJ : 22/11/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -HARIJAN WELFARE SCHEME -T N -VALIDITY
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 2114 = 1994 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 666 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 519 = 1995 ( 1 ) JT 247 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 1106

U.O.I. .VS. KARNAIL SINGH DOJ : 17/11/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 587 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 728 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 501 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCALE 21

STATE OF HARYANA .VS. RAGHUBIR DAYAL DOJ : 10/11/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -PUBLICATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 448 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 133 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 507 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 1084

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI DOJ : 27/10/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 840 = 1994 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 207 = 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 168 = 1994 ( 7 ) JT 257 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 782

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ELURU .VS. JASTI ROHINI DOJ : 27/10/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -MANIPULATED SALE -BONAFIDE SALE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SUPPL. SCR 232 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 717 = 1995 ( 2 ) JT 339 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCALE 75

K.S. PARIPOORNAN .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 20/10/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 581 = 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 696 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 367 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 951

U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD .VS. GYAN DEVI (DEAD) DOJ : 20/10/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -LOCAL AUTHORITY -U P AWAS EVAM VIKAS NIGAM -PROCEEDINGS
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 724 = 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 646 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 326 = 1994 ( 7 ) JT 304 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 755

NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. .VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION NEYVELY DOJ : 19/10/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -PERSON INTERESTED
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1004 = 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 567 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 221 = 1995 ( 1 ) JT 281 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 1129

STATE OF MIZORAM .VS. BIAKCHHAWNA DOJ : 07/10/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -PROCEDURE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 421 = 1995 ( 1 ) SCC 156 = 1994 ( 7 ) JT 472 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 948

KINGSWAY MODEL TOWN CO. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 05/10/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 46 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 711

BABUA RAM .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 04/10/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 148 = 1995 ( 2 ) SCC 689 = 1994 ( 7 ) JT 377 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 843

O. JANARDHAN REDDY .VS. SPL. DY. COLLECTOR L.A. UNIT IV LMD KARIMNAGAR DOJ : 30/09/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 186 = 1994 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCR 103 = 1994 ( 6 ) SCC 456 = 1994 ( 6 ) JT 366 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 360

KALIMPONG LAND & BUILDING LTD. .VS. STATE OF W.B. DOJ : 16/09/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -RENT -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 589 = 1994 ( 6 ) SCC 720 = 1994 ( 6 ) JT 102 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 154

K.S. PARIPOORNAN .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 12/09/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -K.S. PARIPOORNAN
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1012 = 1994 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 405 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 593 = 1994 ( 6 ) JT 182 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 192

K.S. PARIPOORNAN .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 12/09/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION -REFERENCE PENDING
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 1012 = 1994 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 405 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 593 = 1994 ( 6 ) JT 182 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 192

SHANTI DEVI .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DOJ : 31/08/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 1 = 1994 ( 6 ) SCC 9 = 1994 ( 5 ) JT 472 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 883

MEHTAB SINGH .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 30/08/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -PRICE RISE
CITATION(S) 1995 AIR 667 = 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 793 = 1994 ( 6 ) SCC 64 = 1994 ( 5 ) JT 394 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 876

N. KRISHNAMACHARI .VS. MANAGING DIRECTION APSRTC HYDERABAD DOJ : 12/08/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 608 = 1994 ( 6 ) SCC 74 = 1994 ( 5 ) JT 391 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 853

CALCUTTA PORT TRUST .VS. DEBA PROSAD BAG DOJ : 12/08/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1995 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCC 454 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCALE 27

P. CHINNANNA .VS. STATE OF A.P. DOJ : 08/08/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 426 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 486 = 1994 ( 5 ) JT 320 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 688

KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD .VS. RAMAPRIYA HOTELS PVT. LTD. DOJ : 28/07/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 338 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 672 = 1994 ( 5 ) JT 113 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 565

PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 22/07/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 117 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 547 = 1994 ( 6 ) JT 585 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 562

STATE OF U.P. .VS. RAJIV GUPTA DOJ : 14/07/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -LIMITATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 686 = 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 686 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 552

K. PERIASAMI .VS. SUB TEHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION DOJ : 04/05/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -PARITY -SAME NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 180 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 996

JAINULABUDEEN .VS. GOVT. OF T.N. DOJ : 04/05/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -JUDICIAL REVIEW -PUBLIC PURPOSE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 568 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 897

SRINIVASA COOP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY .VS. MADAM GURUMURTHY SASTRY DOJ : 03/05/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -ACQUISITION FOR COMPANY -PRIVATE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 675 = 1994 ( 4 ) JT 197 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 785

GRAHAK SANSTHA MANCH .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 27/04/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -REQUISITION -RELEASE -PERIOD
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 2319 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 192 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 474 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 705

STATE OF RAJASTHAN .VS. SARDAR PUSHPENDRA SINGH DOJ : 27/04/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -CEILING -COMPENSATION -RAJASTHAN
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 363 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 918

U.O.I. .VS. DISTRICT JUDGE UDHAMPUR DOJ : 05/04/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 737 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 629 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 822

COL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR .VS. BIHARI LAL DOJ : 18/03/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 538 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 348 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 296

AJIT SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 18/03/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 67 = 1994 ( 2 ) JT 700 =

COL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR .VS. BIHARI LAL DOJ : 18/03/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 523 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 1 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 285

SONAPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD. .VS. STATE OF ASSAM DOJ : 03/03/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -TEA ESTATE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 303 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 746 = 1994 ( 2 ) JT 653 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCALE 873

BUTA SINGH (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 01/03/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 560 = 1995 ( 3 ) SCALE 591

ADDL. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .VS. YAMANAPPA BASALINGAPPA CHALWADI DOJ : 22/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1836 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 121 = 1994 ( 3 ) SCC 323 = 1994 ( 2 ) JT 179 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCALE 864

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD .VS. STATE OF BIHAR DOJ : 21/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 743 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 355

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. RADHEY SHYAM DOJ : 17/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 1 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 370 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 416 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 243

STATE OF PUNJAB .VS. HANS RAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. SOHAN SINGH DOJ : 15/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 734 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 345 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 372

ADDL. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE .VS. THAKOREDAS MAJOR DOJ : 08/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 2227 = 1997 (11 ) SCC 412 =

DEEP CHAND .VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DOJ : 02/02/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1901 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCR 530 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 99 = 1994 ( 3 ) JT 319 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 325

SRI PIEDADE FERNANDES .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 27/01/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 3 ) SCALE 860

JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM .VS. REVENUE DISISIONAL OFFICER ADILABAD A.P. DOJ : 25/01/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 1 ) SCR 368 = 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 595 = 1994 ( 2 ) JT 604 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 298

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .VS. GURAPPA HIROJIRAO DOJ : 25/01/1994 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 1 ) SCR 336 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCC 331 = 1994 ( 1 ) JT 346 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCALE 213

INDER PARSHAD .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 13/01/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -LEASE -OWNER
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 5 ) SCC 239 = 1998 ( 4 ) JT 440 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCALE 553

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. GANGARAM DOJ : 11/01/1994 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -CONDITION -SCHEME -TOWN PLANNING
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SCC 489 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCALE 691

SANGAPPA GURULINGAPPA SAJJAN .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 03/12/1993 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 4 ) SCC 145 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCALE 20

U.O.I. .VS. KOLLUNI RAMAIAH DOJ : 16/11/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1149 = 1993 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 694 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCC 367 = 1993 ( 6 ) JT 465 = 1993 ( 4 ) SCALE 463

PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. .VS. MST. SAIYADAN DOJ : 14/10/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -VALUATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1160 = 1993 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCR 296 = 1994 ( 2 ) SCC 133 = 1993 ( 6 ) JT 123 = 1993 ( 4 ) SCALE 173

SURESHCHANDRA C. MEHTA .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 08/10/1993 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 511 =

RAM CHAND .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 30/09/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 558 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCC 44 = 1993 ( 5 ) JT 465 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 906

SATENDRA PRASAD JAIN .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 16/09/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 2517 = 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCR 336 = 1993 ( 4 ) SCC 369 = 1993 ( 5 ) JT 385 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 787

SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD .VS. STATE OF BIHAR DOJ : 13/08/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 533 = 1993 ( 4 ) SCC 255 = 1993 ( 4 ) JT 590 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 435

GAURI SHANKAR GAUR .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 12/08/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 169 = 1993 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 667 = 1994 ( 1 ) SCC 92 = 1993 SUPPL. JT 104 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 371

JIWANI .VS. RAJMATA BASANTIKA DEVI DOJ : 20/07/1993 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1286 = 1993 ( 3 ) SUPPL. SCC 217 = 1993 ( 4 ) JT 284 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 205

HNASRAJ H. JAIN .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 14/07/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -ALTERNATIVE SITE
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 216 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 634 = 1993 ( 4 ) JT 360 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 153

HNASRAJ H. JAIN .VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DOJ : 14/07/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 216 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 634 = 1993 ( 4 ) JT 360 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCALE 153

GULZARA SINGH .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 11/05/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SALES PRICE
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 3 ) SCR 645 = 1993 ( 4 ) SCC 245 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 668 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 808

STATE OF W.B. .VS. SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY FISHERIES PVT. LTD. DOJ : 03/05/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 2103 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCR 481 = 1993 ( 4 ) SUPPL. SCC 674 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 433 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 749

INDER SINGH .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 27/04/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -LOCATION OF LAND
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 3 ) SCR 371 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 240 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 653 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 667

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BHATINDA .VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DOJ : 15/04/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -POSSESSION -DELAY
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 24 = 1993 SUPPL. JT 96 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 561

PARMESHWARI DEVI (DEAD) .VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DOJ : 13/04/1993 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 1142 = 1994 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCC 564 =

RAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 06/04/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -AS ADDMISSIBLE UNDER STATE ACT
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 1557 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCR 969 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 60 = 1993 ( 2 ) JT 610 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 400

RAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 06/04/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -BUILDING
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 1557 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCR 969 = 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 60 = 1993 ( 2 ) JT 610 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 400

GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DOJ : 30/03/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPULSORY ACQUISITION -PUBLIC PURPOSE -APPLICATION OF MIND
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 2329 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCR 788 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCC 662 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 194 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 342

GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. .VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DOJ : 30/03/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -AWARD -LIMITATION LAW -COMPUTING OF PERIOD
CITATION(S) 1994 AIR 2329 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCR 788 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCC 662 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 194 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 342

GREATER DELHI PLANNERS LTD. .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 17/03/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AWARD -INCOMPLETE AWARD
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 2 ) SCC 674 = 1993 ( 2 ) JT 308 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCALE 92

WASTE PRODUCTS RECLAIMOR PRIVATE LTD. .VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. DOJ : 25/02/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -OBJECT -LOCUS STANDI -SLURRY COAL AREA
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 358 = 1993 SUPPL. JT 53 = 1993 ( 1 ) SCALE 738

U.O.I. .VS. SHER SINGH DOJ : 28/01/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -IMPLEAD -PROPER PARTY -ANY PERSON INTERESTED
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SCR 326 = 1993 ( 1 ) SCC 608 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 693 = 1993 ( 1 ) SCALE 209

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD .VS. SHRI KISHAN DOJ : 27/01/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -WASTE & ARABLE -URGENCY OF LAND -NOT MENTIONED IN NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SCR 269 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCC 84 = 1993 ( 1 ) JT 298 = 1993 ( 1 ) SCALE 183

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD .VS. SHRI KISHAN DOJ : 27/01/1993 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PROCEDURE -DE ACQUISITION -POSSESSION
CITATION(S) 1993 ( 1 ) SCR 269 = 1993 ( 2 ) SCC 84 = 1993 ( 1 ) JT 298 = 1993 ( 1 ) SCALE 183

U.O.I. .VS. HARI KRISHAN KHOSLA DOJ : 16/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -PROPERTY ACQUISITION -SIMILARITIES
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 620 = 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 149 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 574 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 621

U.O.I. .VS. HARI KRISHAN KHOSLA DOJ : 16/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 620 = 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 149 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 574 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 621

SIKANDAR SINGH GRAWAL .VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1994 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCC 448 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 370 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 522

HANS RAJ .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH THRU LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SINGLE JUDGE
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 191 = 1993 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 228 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 439 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 519

RANJIT SINGH .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -ACQUIRED SIMILAR LANDS
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 5 ) JT 414 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 521

ARJAN SINGH .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 5 ) JT 375 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 520

PAL SINGH .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 225 = 1992 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 452 = 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 400 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 371 = 1992 SCALE 517

RANJIT SINGH .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 5 ) JT 414 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 521

BHAG SINGH .VS. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH DOJ : 08/09/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 222 = 1992 SUPPL. SCR 457 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 402 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 514

AKHARA BRAHM BUTA AMRITSAR .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 24/08/1992 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -WRIT PETITION -LAND ACQUISITION -AGREEMENT
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 366 = 1992 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 1 = 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 243 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 136 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 439

AKHARA BRAHM BUTA AMRITSAR .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 24/08/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -WRIT PETITION -AGREEMENT
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 366 = 1992 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 1 = 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 243 = 1992 ( 5 ) JT 136 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 439

A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAIDU .VS. SUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM DOJ : 14/08/1992 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENHANCEMENT -IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND COMPACT
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 890 = 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 78 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 508 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCALE 208

MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN .VS. SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION HYDERABAD DOJ : 15/05/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST -REFERRED CONSTITUTION BENCH
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 394 = 1992 ( 3 ) SCC 239 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 339 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 1241

SARASWATI DEVI .VS. U.P. GOVERNMENT DOJ : 15/05/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -PARTLY AGR. LAND OR UNFIT LAND
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 1620 = 1993 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCC 569 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 1311

MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN .VS. SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION HYDERABAD DOJ : 15/05/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -INTEREST -6%
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 394 = 1992 ( 3 ) SCC 239 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 339 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 1241

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA THRU ITS DISTT. MANAGER, FARIDKOT .VS. MAKHAN SINGH DOJ : 21/04/1992 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -COURT INTERFERENCE -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 1406 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCR 615 = 1992 ( 3 ) SCC 67 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 1 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 928

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA THRU ITS DISTT. MANAGER, FARIDKOT .VS. MAKHAN SINGH DOJ : 21/04/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -APPEAL -COMPENSATION -FCI
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 1406 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCR 615 = 1992 ( 3 ) SCC 67 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 1 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 928

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA THRU ITS DISTT. MANAGER, FARIDKOT .VS. MAKHAN SINGH DOJ : 21/04/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -LOCATION OF LAND
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 1406 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCR 615 = 1992 ( 3 ) SCC 67 = 1992 ( 4 ) JT 1 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 928

ASHWANI KUMAR DHINGRA .VS. STATE OF PUNJAB DOJ : 06/03/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REFERENCE TO COURT
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 974 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCR 39 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 592 = 1992 ( 2 ) JT 353 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 555

BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 19/02/1992 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -FOREST LAW -REHABILITATION -ADIVASI
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 920 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCR 857 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 202 = 1992 ( 2 ) JT 421 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 407

BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 19/02/1992 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -REHABILITATION -ADIVASI -MIRZAPUR U.P.
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 920 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCR 857 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 202 = 1992 ( 2 ) JT 421 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 407

MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD .VS. MOHD. SHAFI DOJ : 13/02/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -CONDITION PRECEDENT -MANDATORY CLARITY
CITATION(S) 1992 ( 1 ) SCR 657 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 168 = 1992 ( 3 ) JT 523 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 322

STATE OF A.P. .VS. KALVA SURYANARAYANA DOJ : 05/02/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION -TITLE -A P
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 797 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 732 = 1992 ( 1 ) JT 499 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 291

STATE OF A.P. .VS. KALVA SURYANARAYANA DOJ : 05/02/1992 JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -SUIT -LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 797 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 732 = 1992 ( 1 ) JT 499 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 291

DIBRUGARH CO. LTD. .VS. COLLECTOR OF DIBRUGARH ASSAM DOJ : 24/01/1992
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SURCHARGE -ASSAM
CITATION(S) 1993 AIR 949 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 239 = 1992 ( 1 ) JT 338 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 166

SAROJINI TEA CO. (P) LTD. .VS. COLLECTOR OF DIBRUGARH ASSAM DOJ : 24/01/1992 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SURCHARGE -ASSAM
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 1264 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCR 371 = 1992 ( 2 ) SCC 156 = 1992 ( 1 ) JT 327 = 1992 ( 1 ) SCALE 159

BHAGWATHULA SAMANNA .VS. SPL. TAHSILDAR & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISAKHAPATNAM DOJ : 18/09/1991 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1992 AIR 2298 = 1991 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 172 = 1991 ( 4 ) SCC 506 = 1991 ( 4 ) JT 56 = 1991 ( 2 ) SCALE 613

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI .VS. ASHOK SINGHAL DOJ : 25/03/1991
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1991 AIR 1320 = 1991 ( 2 ) SUPPL. SCC 419 = 1993 ( 3 ) JT 692 =

RAM KUMAR .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 21/02/1991 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1991 ( 1 ) SCR 649 = 1991 ( 2 ) SCC 247 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 582 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE 349

NARAIN DAS JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. .VS. AGRI NAGAR MAHAPALIKA AGRA DOJ : 14/02/1991 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -SOLATIUM
CITATION(S) 1991 ( 1 ) SCR 389 = 1991 ( 4 ) SCC 212 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 461 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE 215

NIADAR .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 25/01/1991 ORDER
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1991 ( 1 ) SCR 135 = 1991 ( 2 ) SCC 126 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 227 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE 107

NIADAR .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 25/01/1991 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1991 ( 1 ) SCR 135 = 1991 ( 2 ) SCC 126 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 227 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE 107

SHER SINGH .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 08/01/1991 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1991 AIR 2048 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCR 1 = 1991 ( 3 ) SCC 335 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 149 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE 25

S.C. COOPERATIVE LAND OWNING SOCIETY LTD. BHATINDA .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 18/09/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -REDETERMINATION -COURT FEE
CITATION(S) 1991 AIR 730 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCC 174 = 1990 ( 4 ) JT 1 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 557

TEJ RAM .VS. COLLECTOR JAMMU TAWI DOJ : 12/09/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -SOLATIUM -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1991 AIR 429 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCC 108 = 1991 ( 5 ) JT 26 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 516

TEJ RAM .VS. COLLECTOR JAMMU TAWI DOJ : 12/09/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -SHOPS
CITATION(S) 1991 AIR 429 = 1991 ( 1 ) SCC 108 = 1991 ( 5 ) JT 26 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 516

PERIYAR & PAREEKARMI RUBBERS LTD. .VS. STATE OF KERALA DOJ : 06/09/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 2192 = 1990 SUPPL. SCR 362 = 1991 ( 1 ) JT 450 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 525

TEK CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. .VS. U.O.I. DOJ : 31/08/1990 ORDER
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1990 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCR 126 = 1990 ( 4 ) SCC 495 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 68 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 479

BAGH AMBERPAT WELFARE SOCIETY .VS. TULSI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY DOJ : 17/08/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1990 ( 3 ) SCR 782 = 1990 ( 4 ) SCC 468 = 1990 ( 3 ) JT 497 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 253

ABRAHAM MATHAI .VS. SUB-COLLECTOR LAND ACQ. OFFICER DOJ : 27/07/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1990 ( 3 ) SCR 535 = 1990 ( 4 ) SCC 136 = 1990 ( 3 ) JT 337 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCALE 159

U.P. RESIDENTS EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY .VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOIDA DOJ : 03/05/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY -NOIDA
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1325 = 1990 SCR 64 = 1990 SUPPL. SCC 175 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 445 = 1990 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCALE 46

U.P. RESIDENTS EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY .VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOIDA DOJ : 03/05/1990 JUDGEMENT
TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -ALLOTMENT -COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1325 = 1990 SCR 64 = 1990 SUPPL. SCC 175 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 445 = 1990 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCALE 46

NEELAGANGABAI .VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DOJ : 03/05/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -PAYMENT
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1321 = 1990 ( 3 ) SCR 20 = 1990 ( 3 ) SCC 617 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 330 = 1990 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCALE 102

HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. PRESIDENT LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL DOJ : 19/04/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -ENTITLEMENT -ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
CITATION(S) 1990 ( 2 ) SCR 526 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 625 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 567 = 1990 ( 1 ) SUPPL. SCALE 94

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. MADAN LAL DOJ : 01/03/1990 JUDGEMENT
TOWN PLANNING -LAND ACQUISITION -SCHEME -INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1143 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 334 = 1990 ( 3 ) JT 140 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 312

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .VS. MADAN LAL DOJ : 01/03/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1143 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 334 = 1990 ( 3 ) JT 140 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 312

VISHWAS NAGAR EVACUEES PLOT PURCHASERS ASSON. .VS. UNDER SECRETARY DELHI ADMINISTRATION DOJ : 27/02/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -DELAY -WRIT PETITION -REFUGEE
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 849 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 268 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 177 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 429

VISHWAS NAGAR EVACUEES PLOT PURCHASERS ASSON. .VS. UNDER SECRETARY DELHI ADMINISTRATION DOJ : 27/02/1990
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE -DELAY -WRIT PETITION -LAND ACQUISITION
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 849 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 268 = 1990 ( 2 ) JT 177 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 429

JOGINDER SINGH SAINI .VS. STATE OF HARYANA DOJ : 16/02/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -AGRICULTURAL LAND -NURSERY PLANTS
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 1219 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 417 = 1990 ( 3 ) SCC 276 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 232 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 204

HIRA LAL CHAWLA .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 13/02/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
CITATION(S) 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 325 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 149 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 194 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 161

GHAZIABAD SHEROMANI SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. .VS. STATE OF U.P. DOJ : 31/01/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -G.D.A.
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 645 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 203 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCC 583 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 128 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 151

HIRALAL .VS. GAJJAN DOJ : 30/01/1990
LAND ACQUISITION -ADIVASI -CULTIVATION
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 723 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 164 = 1990 ( 3 ) SCC 285 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 95 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 82

P.V.G. RAJU GURU .VS. STATE OF A.P. DOJ : 24/01/1990
LAND LAW -LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -INTEREST
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 650 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 134 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 61 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 86 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 72

SPECIAL MILITARY ESTATES OFFICER .VS. MUNIVENKATARAMIAH DOJ : 10/01/1990 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION
CITATION(S) 1990 AIR 499 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCR 4 = 1990 ( 2 ) SCC 168 = 1990 ( 1 ) JT 1 = 1990 ( 1 ) SCALE 2

STATE OF U.P. .VS. RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM DOJ : 11/01/1989 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -NOTIFICATION
CITATION(S) 1989 AIR 682 = 1989 ( 1 ) SCR 92 = 1989 ( 1 ) SCC 591 = 1989 ( 1 ) JT 58 = 1989 ( 1 ) SCALE 50

SARDARMAL LALWANI .VS. STATE OF M.P. DOJ : 11/12/1972 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -M P
CITATION(S) 1973 AIR 1383 = 1973 ( 3 ) SCR 52 = 1973 ( 1 ) SCC 599 =

NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST .VS. VITHAL RAO DOJ : 11/12/1972 JUDGEMENT
LAND ACQUISITION -COMPENSATION -MARKET VALUE -MAHARASHTRA
CITATION(S) 1973 AIR 689 = 1973 ( 3 ) SCR 39 = 1973 ( 1 ) SCC 500 =

RECENT CITATIONS ON LAND ACQUISITION CASE LAWS OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:46:00 -0700

MODE OF CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION RE-EXPLAINED BY SUPREME COURT 2012 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Wed, 2 May 2012 08:09:00 -0700

RESTITUTION, MESNE PROFITS, COSTS, FALSE CLAIMS, COMPENSATORY COSTS RE-EXPLAINED WITH CITATIONS 2012 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Tue, 1 May 2012 07:42:00 -0700

READ FULL JUDGMENT

JUSTICE Dalveer Bhandari, & JUSTICE Dipak Misra of Supreme court of India in the case of A.Shanmugam vs Ariya, Decided on 27 April 2012, has held as follows:- Experience reveals that a large number of cases are filed on false claims or evasive pleas are introduced by the defendant to cause delay in the administration of justice and this can be sufficiently taken care of if the Courts adopt realistic approach granting restitution. ................. Unless wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from frivolous litigations, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. Experience also reveals that our Courts have been very reluctant to grant the actual or realistic costs. We would like to explain this by giving this illustration. When a litigant is compelled to spend Rs.1 lac on a frivolous litigation there is hardly any justification in awarding Rs. 1,000/- as costs unless there are special circumstances of that case. We need to decide cases while keeping pragmatic realities in view. We have to ensure that unscrupulous litigant is not permitted to derive any benefit by abusing the judicial process. ......................

This Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 in paragraph 52 (C, D and G) of the judgment dealt with the aspect of imposition of actual or realistic costs which are equally relevant for this case reads as under:- “C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.”

This Court in another important case in Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India and Others (2011) 8 SCC 161 (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) had an occasion to deal with the concept of restitution. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment dealing with relevant judgments are reproduced hereunder:-

193. This Court in Grindlays Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta (1980) 2 SCC 191 observed as under :- “…When passing such orders the High Court draws on its inherent power to make all such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice between the parties. The interests of justice require that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court, by the mere circumstance that it has initiated a proceeding in the court, must be neutralised. The simple fact of the institution of litigation by itself should not be permitted to confer an advantage on the party responsible for it. …”

194. In Ram Krishna Verma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (1992) 2 SCC 620 this Court observed as under :- “The 50 operators including the appellants/ private operators have been running their stage carriages by blatant abuse of the process of the court by delaying the hearing as directed in Jeevan Nath Bahl’s case and the High Court earlier thereto. As a fact, on the expiry of the initial period of grant after Sept. 29, 1959 they lost the right to obtain renewal or to ply their vehicles, as this Court declared the scheme to be operative. However, by sheer abuse of the process of law they are continuing to ply their vehicles pending hearing of the objections. This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer - [1990] 2 SCC 191 held that the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised. It was further held that the institution of the litigation by it should not be permitted to confer an unfair advantage on the party responsible for it. In the light of that law and in view of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction would do complete justice and neutralise the unfair advantage gained by the 50 operators including the appellants in dragging the litigation to run the stage carriages on the approved route or area or portion thereof and forfeited their right to hearing of the objections filed by them to the draft scheme dated Feb. 26, 1959. …”

195. This Court in Kavita Trehan vs Balsara Hygiene Products (1994) 5 SCC 380 observed as under :-
“The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands. It will be exercised under inherent powers where the case did not strictly fall within the ambit of Section 144. Section 144 opens with the words “Where and in so far as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, ...”. The instant case may not strictly fall within the terms of Section 144; but the aggrieved party in such a case can appeal to the larger and general powers of restitution inherent in every court.”

196. This Court in Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 325 observed as under :-
“From the narration of the facts, though it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and on occasion become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes long time. In such a situation for protecting the interest of judgment creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate order so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases, Court may appoint Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour decree is passed and to protect the property including further alienation.”

197. In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh - CM (Main) No.449 of 2002 decided by the Delhi high Court on 6.11.2008, the court held as under:-
“The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Court. One of the aims of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.”

198. We approve the findings of the High Court of Delhi in the aforementioned case.

199. The Court also stated “Before parting with this case, we consider it necessary to observe that one of the main reasons for over- flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrongdoer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrongdoers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts”. ................

208. In Marshall sons and Company (I) Limited v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Limited and Another (1999) 2 SCC 325 this Court in para 4 of the judgment observed as under:
“…It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long time. In such a situation, for protecting the interest of the judgment-creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour the decree is passed and to protect the property including further alienation. …”

209. In Ouseph Mathai and Others v. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 319 this Court reiterated the legal position that the stay granted by the Court does not confer a right upon a party and it is granted always subject to the final result of the matter in the Court and at the risk and costs of the party obtaining the stay. After the dismissal, of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the Court which had granted the stay. Grant of stay does not automatically amount to extension of a statutory protection.

210. This Court in South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P. and others (2003) 8 SCC 648 on examining the principle of restitution in para 26 of the judgment observed as under: “In our opinion, the principle of restitution takes care of this submission. The word “restitution” in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order, what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the court or in direct consequence of a decree or order (see Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue, U.P - (1984) Supp SCC 505) In law, the term “restitution” is used in three senses: (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong done to another; and (iii) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.”

211. The Court in para 28 of the aforesaid judgment very carefully mentioned that the litigation should not turn into a fruitful industry and observed as under:
“… … …Litigation may turn into a fruitful industry. Though litigation is not gambling yet there is an element of chance in every litigation. Unscrupulous litigants may feel encouraged to approach the courts, persuading the court to pass interlocutory orders favourable to them by making out a prima facie case when the issues are yet to be heard and determined on merits and if the concept of restitution is excluded from application to interim orders, then the litigant would stand to gain by swallowing the benefits yielding out of the interim order even though the battle has been lost at the end. This cannot be countenanced. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled to a relief assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated by award of interest at a suitable reasonable rate for the period for which the interim order of the court withholding the release of money had remained in operation.”

212. The Court in the aforesaid judgment also observed that once the doctrine of restitution is attracted, the interest is often a normal relief given in restitution. Such interest is not controlled by the provisions of the Interest Act of 1839 or 1978.

213. In a relatively recent judgment of this Court in Amarjeet Singh and Others v. Devi Ratan and Others (2010) 1 SCC 417 the Court in para 17 of the judgment observed as under:
“No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court. … …”

215. In consonance with the concept of restitution, it was observed that courts should be careful and pass an order neutralizing the effect of all consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the court. Such express directions may be necessary to check the rising trend among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure and then avoid adjudication on merits.

216. In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation.

217. The court’s constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases.

218. This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others 2011(6) Scale 677 had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that case as under:
“While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.”

IT IS DUTY BOUND ON THE PART OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO INTIMATE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:13:00 -0700

JUSTICE HVG RAMESH of Karnataka High Court in case of Mahadevappa And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka Reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1750 It is needles to say it is duty bound on the part of the revenue authorities and the Sub-Registrar as per Section 128(4) to invariably intimate the fact of transfer of interest or ownership from the first party to the second party to the concerned revenue authorities so that concerned revenue authorities will make the mutation entries in the concerned register and also proper entries in the revenue register after following the procedure as per Section 129 of the Land Revenue Act. Ultimately, any intended purchaser would get himself verified about the status of the property whether before he could go for any such purchase or seek for transfer of interest from the person who has got a right, title and interest so that he will not be mislead. For want of these entries in the revenue records and for want of proper information from the concerned Department of the Government, often purchasers are being mislead and get into problems and hardship. It is high time to intimate the Revenue Department and the concerned Department to meticulously follow the procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it should be made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the Government to save the public from the precarious situation and also there shall be timely action by the revenue authorities without there being any delay on their part in making entries in the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office and in the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future complications.

PHADA LAND - COURT AUCTION - RESTORATION - RIGHTS OF PARTIES

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:45:00 -0700

Karnataka High Court
Nagappa Gowda And Ors. vs Doddamane Gurupadappa And Anr. on 6 November, 1952
Equivalent citations: AIR 1954 Kant 39, AIR 1954 Mys 39, ILR 1953 KAR 408
Author: Vasudevamurthy
Bench: Medapa, Vasudevamurthy

JUDGMENT

Vasudevamurthy, J.

1. The plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits of a garden land has been party decreed by the District Judge, Shimoga and defendants 1 to 4 and 6 have appealed. Defendant 5 has been formally impleaded as respondent 2 and the plaintiff is respondent 1. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections regarding the 4 share of the garden which has not been decreed in his favour.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to a joint Hindu family of one Benavanna- Gowda and his three undivided brothers. For failure to pay land revenue it was forfeited to Government in or about the year 1937, but it could not be disposed of in revenue auction for want of bidders and it was resumed or taken under Government "phada"; subsequently as Benavanna-Gowda paid up all the dues it was granted to him. For some monies due by him and his brothers the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 27 of 35-36 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Shimoga, and in execution of that decree purchased the suit property along with some other items in Court sale on 1-10-42. After the sale was confirmed he was put in possession in Mis. No. 11 of 43-44 . At that stage the father of defendant 6, one Chennabasappa now dead and who was the then Manager of the family of the defendants filed a suit O. S. No. 160/43-44 in the Shimoga Munsiff's Court for a declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the plaintiff alleging that he was in possession, and obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from entering the suit garden. Under colour of that order he then removed the areca and paddy crop for the year 1943-44. Chennaba-sappa's suit was decreed in his favour by the Munsiff but, on appeal, was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Shimoga and the dismissal was confirmed in the High Court. In spite of that decision the deceased Chennabasappa and after him defendants 1 to 6 his legal representatives have been continuing in unlawful possession of the land and were liable to deliver up possession and mesne profits.

3. The defendants pleaded that the suit property belonged solely to Renevannagowda and was his self-acquisition. One Krishnappa filed a suit against him for some monies due by him in O. S. No. 335/26-27 in the Shimoga Munsiff's Court and brought it to sale in Ex. case No. 191 of 31-32 when it was purchased in Court auction by one Sundarasastry. After the sale was confirmed in his favour on 24-12-1934, Sundarasastry was put in possession through Court on 1-1-35 in Mis. No. 121/34-35. He subsequently sold the garden to Chennabasappa, father of defendant 6, on 30-6-43. Sundarasastry and after the sale by him Chennabasappa and the defendants were all along in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff had got the suit property attached before judgment in O. S. 27/35-36 which he had brought against Benavannagowda and his brothers. Sundarasastry had then put in a claim objecting to the attachment in Mis. Case No. 20V of 35-36. That claim had been allowed in favour of Sundarasastry as far back as on l4-3-1937. The plaintiff had not got that order set aside and the same had become conclusively binding on him. Nevertheless he had played a fraud on the Court by getting the suit property sold subsequently in execution in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Shimoga without disclosing to that Court the fact that Sundarasastry's claim against the attachment had been allowed as aforesaid & he could not acquire any right under such a fraudulent sale.

The Suit O. S. No. 160/43-44 filed by Chennaba-sappa in the Munsiff's Court at Shimoga for a declaration of title and permanent injunction was decreed in his favour by the Munsiff, Shimoga, as admitted in the plaint. But on appeal in R.A. No. 16/45-16 the Subordinate Judge rejected the plaint only on a technical ground that an extract from the Record of Rights had not been filed along with the plaint, and in -- 'S. A. No. 356 of 1946-47 (Mys) (A)' that order was confirmed. There had been therefore no decision on the merits against the defendants in those appeals and three criminal complaints filed by the plaintiff against the defendants complaining of trespass and that in respect of the produce of this suit garden had ended in orders of discharge. The defendants had considerably improved the garden and in the event of the plaintiff succeeding they were entitled to be reimbursed the value of the same. The plaintiff had brought this suit on account of ill-will as a counter blast to some other litigation between the parties.

4. The District Judge, Shimoga, found that the suit property was the joint family property of Benavannagowda and his brothers and that it did not belong to Benavannagowda alone. He held that the order in the claim case could only affect Benavannagowda's share as Sundarasastry had bought only his right, title and interest. He did not think that the plaintiff was entitled to claim any enlargement of his rights on account of the forfeiture and other revenue proceedings. He did not also believe that the defendants had improved the suit garden. He, therefore, made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a 3/4th share of the garden and mesne profits.

5. Mr. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended before us that the order of the Subordinate Judge in the claim case was that the plaintiff could not validly attach before judgment the suit property as belonging to his judgment-debtors Benavannagowda and his brothers;,that as that order had not been set aside within the time allowed by law, as required under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C., it had become conclusive. The plaintiff could not in this suit put forward or claim the identical right which had been negatived in the miscellaneous ease. Mr. Sadanandaswamy, learned counsel for respondent 1, has urged that the attachment effected by his client was one before judgment and not in execution of a decree, and that consequently neither Order 21, Rule 63 which requires a suit to be filed to have an order made in a claim case set aside nor Article 11, Limitation Act which prescribes a period of one year within which such a suit must be filed applied in terms to bar the plaintiff's present suit. Moreover this suit was one for declaration of title and possession and not for setting aside the order in the claim case and it was really governed by Article 138 which gives his client 12 years from the date of confirmation of sale to bring such a suit.

6. It has been held so far back as in -- '4 Mys C C R 146 (B)' that an order passed under Section 487 of the old Code of Civil Procedure corresponding to Order 38, Rule 8 of the present Code allowing a claim to property attached before judgment in a suit is subject to the provisions of Section 283 (Order 21, Rule 63 of the present Code) and that the plaintiff's remedy to have it set aside is a suit under that section. This decision has been followed with approval in -- '51 Mys H C R 448 (C)', where reference has also been made to -- 'Pyaw Gyi Ma v. Latchmanan Chettiyar', AIR 1931 Rang 183 (D) and -- 'Maliknarjuna v. Virayya', AIR 1918 Mad 26 (FB) (E). See also -- 'Dhan Bibi v. Mrinalini Ghosh', AIR 1945 Cal 449 (P). Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C. declares that where a claim or an objection is preferred to an attachment the party against whom the order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive.

It has been held in -- '44 Mys HCR 589 (G)', while dealing with a similar provision under Order 32, Rule 103 that the effect of the failure to file a suit within one year of an order made under Order 21, Rule 97 to set aside that order and to establish his right to present possession of the property in dispute, the claim to such possession is concluded and even as a defendant he cannot resist the recovery of possession by the opposite party. It was observed in that case that as between the parties to that order there was a bar provided under Order 21, Rule 103 and as between themselves the unsuccessful party lost his right to possession. He could not also resist the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of possession as a defendant in the suit for tne same reasons as would preclude him from suing as plaintiff to recover possession. It was further pointed out in that case that any other way of construing those provisions would be to allow the unsuccessful party to circumvent the law. See also -- 'Azizullah Khan v. Ghulam Hussein', AIR 1924 Sind 97 at p. 99 (H); -- 'Nema Gauda v. Paresha', 22 Bom 640 (I); -- 'Ma Sein-Htay v. Maung Mya', AIR 1935 Rang 161 (J), and Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, 11th Edn; page 848 where it is observed that "subject to the re-sult of such suit the order shall be conclusive" in Rule 63 of Order 21 means that unless the suit is brought as provided in that rule the party against whom the order is made cannot assert either as plaintiff or as defendant in any other proceedings the right denied to him by the order; vide -- 'Bailur Krishna v. Lakshmana', 4 Mad 302 (K); 22 Bom 640 (I); -- 'Surnamoya Dasi v. Ashutosh Goswami', 27 Cal 714 (L); -- 'Kayyana Chittemma v. Dossy Gavaramma', 29 Mad 225 (M); -- 'Yarakayya v. Venkata Krishnamaraju'. AIR 1918 Mad 693 (1) (N); -- 'Akkammal v. Komarsami Chettiar', AIR 1943 Mad 36 (O); --'Premsukh Das v. Satyanarain Singh', AIR 1945 Pat 485 (P).

7. We have therefore to see what in this case is the nature and effect of the order passed in the claim preferred by Sundarasastry against the plaintiff who had attached the suit property as belonging to his debtors Benavannagowda and his three brothers. That order has been marked as Ex. I in this case. In his application under Order 38, Rule 8 Sundarasastry had claimed the property attached in the plaintiff's suit O. S. No. 37 of 35-36 as his own and as being in his possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff contested the claim and after recording evidence, during the course of which Sundarasastry examined himself and his tenant Nagabhatta and produced copies of the sale certificate issued in his favour, after the Court confirmed the sale in his favour a receipt evidencing delivery of possession by Court on 1-1-1935 (sic). The plaintiff examined himself, and he and a witness whom he examined gave evidence that the property belonged to the joint family of Benavannagowda and his brothers. The Subordinate Judge held that the evidence disclosed that possession of the property was with Sundarasastry and that the copy of the sole certificate showed that the same had been sold subject to a hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff. The latter and Benavannagegowda had unsuccessfully tried to have the Court sale set aside and both in the Subordinate Judge's Court and on appeal it was held that the attachment which was challenged was apparently got effected merely to harass the petitioner & could not be sustained. That order clearly recognized Sundarasastry's prior purchase under the Court sale in Ex. 191/31-32 in O. S. No. 338/26-27 to attach the property as still belonging to Benavanr.agowda and his brothers. After this order has become conclusive under Order 21, Rule 63, it would be idle for the plaintiff to contend that he can again put forward the same contention, viz., that the property belonged to the joint-family of Benavannagowda and his brothers in this suit between himself and the defendants who claim under Sundarasastry merely because he has chosen to frame it as a suit for declaration of title and possession.

8. Mr. Sadanandaswamy has urged that Article 11 does not in terms apply to the present suit as it refers to a suit to set aside or avoid the effect of an order passed in respect of an attachment in execution of a decree and not an attachment before judgment. That question has been, however, set at rest so far as our Court is concerned, and it has been held by a Bench of this Court in -- 51 Mys HCR 448 (C)', that Article 120 and not Article 11, Limitation Act applies to a suit to set aside an order made on a claim in respect of an attachment before judgment though such claim or objection was preferred after decree in the course of execution proceedings. The same view has been taken in a recent decision of the Calcutta High Court in -- 'AIR 1945 Cal 449 (P)'. The plaintiff's suit which was filed on 11-12-43 is long after even the six years prescribed by Article 120 from the date of the order in the claim case, viz., 14-8-37 even if it can be construed as one to set aside that order.

9. Mr. Sadanandaswamy has next urged that as the suit land had been forfeited to Government under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and transferred to "Government Phada" in the year 1937 for non-payment of land Revenue, whatever rights Sundarasastry acquired under bis purchase in Court sale were lost. He represents that the khata of the land stood in the name of a deceased man Krishnabhatta when the land was forfeited; that it war, restored to Benavannagowcla and that the latter must be deemed to have become its absolute owner again after Sundarasastry lost his rights by the forfeiture. Section 54, Land Revenue Code is, however, clear and a mere forfeiture followed by the restoration to the defaulting "holder" Bena-vannagowda does not wipe out all the earlier rights. It has also been held by this Court in -- 18 Mys CCR 76 (Q)', that neither the Mysore Land Revenue Code nor the rules thereunder contemplate the purchase on behalf of Government land which has been "forfeited" by reason of non-payment of the land revenue; and a mere forfeiture, while it no doubt operates, so far as Government is concerned, as a resumption of the holding, does not, unless it is followed by a sale, necessarily extinguish rights and equities that may be subsisting as between private parties. There an exactly similar contention that the restoration of the khata to the defaulter was equivalent to a new and absolute grant of the land freed from all previously existing rights and equities was negatived. There is therefore no substance in this contention which has been rightly held against Respondent 1 by the District Judge. See also -- 'Amolak v. Dhondi', 30 Bom 4G6 (R).

10. Mr. Krishnamurthi has urged that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed the order; against the appellants in the claim case while obtaining an order for sale of the property as belonging to all the brothers and had got even Benavannagowda's right, title and interest sold up and that he cannot be permitted to come to Court to enforce such a tainted claim under a sale based on a fraud practised on the Court. It is not necessary for us to go into that question or to consider whether the suit property belonged to Benavannagowda alone or his brothers also in the view we have taken that the plaintiff is concluded by the order in the claim case and is precluded from bringing the present suit.

11. In the result this appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout. The cross-objections are also dismissed but without costs.

12. Appeal allowed cross objections dis- missed.

'PHADA' LANDS AND ITS RESTORATION - A CASE LAW IN THIS REGARD

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:39:00 -0700

Zaheera Banu Kareem vs Gomathi Bai G. Kamath on 14 June, 1993
Equivalent citations: ILR 1994 KAR 662
Author: Hanumanthappa
Bench: Hanumanthappa

JUDGMENT

Hanumanthappa, J.

1. Pursuant to the Reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 31.10.1991 in Civil Appeal No. 624 of 1973, finding of this Court is given on the Point, viz., "legal effect of the order of the restoration of the land in favour of Bashir Ahmed".

2.In order to see that both sides are given sufficient opportunity to establish their case, this case was adjourned many times as requested by both sides. Thus the matter was heard on several dates of hearing. On the Point involved both sides made me to go through various documents produced in the case, important Sections of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Authorities relied (sic) by both sides in support of their rival contentions.

3. To give a finding on the Point of Reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proper to mention a few facts, as their narration will avoid the confusion which had set in.

Originally one Kaushik was the owner of the lands in dispute. He sold the said lands to one Syed Basheer Ahmed in the year 1942. The said Syed Basheer Ahmed did not pay the land revenue in respect of the lands in question for some time. As Syed Basheer Ahmed became defaulter in payment of land revenue, the State exercising its power under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the 1888 Code) forfeited the said lands to the Government during the year 1948-49. As there were no bidder, in view of Section 55 of the 1888 Code the Government itself purchased the said lands in Survey Nos. 29 and 30 of Sonnamaranahalli Village and Survey Nos. 35 and 40 of Gullia Nandi Gunta Village, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore District. Earlier to this, there was some dispute between Padmanabha Kamath and Syed Basheer Ahmed. Padmanabha Kamath filed a suit against Syed Basheer Ahmed in the High Court of Madras in O.S.No. 148 of 1946. The said suit was decreed in favour of Padmanabha Kamath. The decree was transferred to the District Court, Bangalore, and was put in execution in Execution Case No. 6 of 1953. The Executing Court brought the lands for sale. On 3.9.1953 Padmanabha Kamath purchased the said lands as he was the highest bidder. On 7.6.1954 the sale in favour of Padmanabha Kamath was confirmed. On 16.3.1955 the Sale Certificate at Exhibit P.3 in respect of the lands in question was issued to Padmanabha Kamath. On 2.1.1965 in Misc. Case No. 127 of 1955 possession of the lands in question was handed over to the auction-purchaser, Padmanabha Kamath. Upto this date by virtue of the forfeiture of the land by the Government in the Revenue records the nature of possession was described as 'Government Phada' under the Kathedar column. On 2.1.1956 Padmanabha Kamath sold the lands under Exhibit P.1 to Smt. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath, w/o Govinda Kamath, resident of Bombay, for valuable consideration. From the date of purchase till 1960-61 the name of the plaintiff, i.e., Smt. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath, was shown in the Exhibits at Exhibit P-8 series as the, person in possession of the property either authorised or unauthorised. The plaintiff contended that during the last week of July, 1967, when the plaintiff's husband went to the lands in question, he found that the defendant, i.e., Smt. Zahera Banu Kareem, was cultivating the lands, viz., S.No. 29 and 30 of Sonnamarnahalli. This action of the defendant was objected by the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice and subsequently the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. No. 31 of 1967, in the Court of the Principal Rural Civil Judge, Bangalore, for declaration and possession of the lands in dispute and for other reliefs, viz., mesne profits, etc. In the plaint the plaintiff contended that (i) Padmanabha Kamath by virtue of purchasing the lands in Court auction perfected his title to the lands and as she had purchased the lands from Padmanabha Kamath her title to the lands was a valid one; (ii) the right, title and interest over the lands in question were transferred to the plaintiff by such sale as per the Sale Deed dated 2.1.1956 at Exhibit P. 1.

4. In the suit the defendant filed her written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. She contended in the Written Statement as follows:

The lands were resumed to the Government for non-payment of land revenue in the year 1948-49. The lands were shown as 'Government Phada' in the revenue records. Till 1961 the Government continued to have title over the lands. The lands were purchased by Padmanabha Kamath in Court auction in Ex.Case No. 6 of 1952-53 in execution of the decree in O.S.No. 148 of 1946 obtained by him against Syed Basheer Ahmed. As the Government had resumed the lands in question, Padmanabha Kamath did not acquire any right over the lands by such purchase. In the year 1961 after receiving the arrears of land revenue due to the Government, the lands were restored to Syed Basheer Ahmed on 22.6.1961 and in turn Syed Basheer Ahmed divided the lands and sold to Rahmathunnisa Begum alias Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed. Thus, by restoration of the lands in question to Syed Basheer Ahmed on 22.6.1961 the lands became free from all encumbrances. On 1.4.1966 the defendant purchased the lands in question from the said Rahmathunnisa Begum alias Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed. Thus contending the defendant requested that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. On the basis of the Pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Is the Court sale in Ex.6/52-53 referred to in the plaint true and did it confer title to the plaintiff's vendor ?

2. Did the plaintiff's vendor take possession of the property in Misc. No. 127/55?

3. Has the plaintiff been the owner of the schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 2.1.1956 and rectification document dated 16.12.1957?

4. Was the plaintiff in possession of the schedule property ?

5. Where the suit lands resumed by the Government in the year 1948-49 as pleaded and whether Syed Basheer Ahmed, the Judgment debtor in Ex.No. 6/52-53 had no right, title or interest in the schedule property on the date of Court sale ?

6. Were the suit lands restored to him in 1961 and did he become the owner of the property in 1961 ? If so, what will be the effect of restoration of the suit land in his favour ?

7. Had the plaintiff made improvements in the land and has the defendant damaged the well, motor, etc. and is the plaintiff entitled to damages ? If so, to what amount ?

8. Is plaintiff entitled to mesne profits ? If so, to what amount?

9. To what relief, the parties are entitled ?"

In support of their case both parties produced certain documents. On the plaintiff's side the following documents were produced :

1. Registered sale deed dated 2.1.1956 in favour of the plaintiff marked with letter 'A';

2. Registered Rectification deed dated 16.12.1957 marked with letter 'B';

3. Sale certificate issued by the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, dated 7.6.1954 marked with letter 'C';

4. Two encumbrance Certificates in respect of the suit schedule lands covering the period from 25.11.1952 to 24.7.1967 marked with letters 'D' and 'E';

5. Certified copies of Extracts for the entries made in the Index of lands and Record of Rights marked 'F-Series' (Four in number);

6. Copy of the legal notice dated 27.7.67 with postal acknowledgment marked 'G' and 'G-1'; and

7. Copy of Power of Attorney of the plaintiff.

On the defendant's side the following documents were produced:

1. Sale deed dated 1.4.66 executed by S, Nazir Ahmed;

2. Sale deed dated 1.4.66 executed by Rahantunnissa in favour of defendant;

3. Encumbrance certificate;

4. Bills issued by the Mysore State Electricity Board;

5. Cash bill of M. Srinivascharlu and Co., and

6. Guarantee card.

Before the trial Court the defendant was placed exparte. Hence, the trial Court accepting the contentions raised by the plaintiff decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 2 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore. Before the learned District Judge many grounds were urged. However, the relevant ground for the purpose of giving a finding on the Reference made is as follows:

"That even on merits the decree and judgment of the lower Court was unsustainable because that the plaintiff had not derived any right, title or interest under the sale deed because her vendor had not derived any right, title or interest under the Court auction sale because the judgment debtor had not any subsisting right in the property on the date of the auction."

After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge formulated several Points for Determination out of which the following Points are relevant for the present purpose:

1. "Whether the plaintiff had acquired right title, and interest under the sale deed dated 2.1.1956 under Exs.P.1 and P-2?"

2. "Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands as asserted by her?"

3. "Whether the defendant has acquired right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties under her sale deed dated 22.6.62?"

4. "Whether she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands?"

The learned District Judge after considering the entire material produced found thus:

"Documents Ex.P.8 series and Ex.P.9 series unambiguously show that in 1951 the land was registered in the name of the Government, and by virtue of such transfer the original owner Syed Basheer Ahmed must be deemed to have been divested of his rights except his right to reclaim the land on payment of land revenue. When the sale was held the auction purchaser at the Court sale must be deemed to have purchased such right, title and interest as the Judgment debtor had in the said lands. Applying this standard two inferences can be drawn viz., (i) the rights of the Judgment debtor in the land were extinguished in 1951 when the Government resumed the lands subject only to the right of the pattadar to reclaim the land on payment of arrears of land revenue and (ii) that when the lands were sold by the Court in auction in execution of the decree the auction purchaser, namely, the vendor of the plaintiff derived all such rights as were with the judgment-debtor. The judgment debtor admittedly had the right to reclaim the land on payment of arrears of land revenue. Therefore, Syed Basheer Ahmed the judgment debtor had no right, title or interest after the Court sale. His rights were completely extinguished and new rights were created in favour of the auction purchaser. He and he alone could have reclaimed the land."

Thus observing the learned District Judge held that the auction purchaser perfected his title to the property subject to his payment of arrears of land revenue if and when the Government thought fit to disturb his possession or the purchaser himself thought fit to prefer his title. Making a reference to Exhibit P.4 -- the Delivery Receipt, Exhibit P-7 - the Treasury Challan dated 16.6.1959 and Exhibit P-6 -the notice dated 11.7.1961 which came into existence prior to the dispute between the parties the learned District Judge held that they conclusively establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the said lands arid cultivated the same. Thus a categorical finding was given by the learned District Judge that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question between 1956 and 1961. Whereas the suit was filed in the year 1967 and even if the defendant was in possession it will not confer any right, title and interest on the defendants. The learned District Judge also held that when the Judgment-debtor preferred the appeal challenging the exparte decree, an interim order of stpy of execution was granted subject to the condition that the judgment-debtor should furnish security for due performance of the decree. But the same was not complied with. As such the learned District Judge found that the decree obtained by Padmanabha Kamath was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession of the property. Thus holding the learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 14.12.1970 dismissed the appeal.

6. In R.S.A, No. 964 of 1971 the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were challenged. But, this Court rejected this Appeal at the stage of admission itself as there was no ground to interfere, by the order dated 26.10.1971. An Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 624 of 1971 has been preferred before the Supreme Court against the Order of this Court rejecting the Regular Second Appeal. In the said Appeal the Supreme Court requires a finding from this Court as to the legal effect of the order of restoration of the land in favour of Basheer Ahmed.

7. Both sides in addition to putting forth their arguments took me through the documents referred to above and the orders made.

8. Sri. Karanth, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant, contended as follows:

The plaintiff's vendor, viz., Padmanabha Kamath, had no title over the lands, as, on the date of Court auction the Judgment-debtor/Basheer Ahmed had no right over the lands and the lands were forfeited and resumed to the Government. Subsequently, the lands came to be shown as 'Government Phada' in the Revenue records. Subsequent to the Court's auction sale and the plaintiff's vendor purchasing the lands in question, the Government restored the lands to Syed Basheer Ahmed/Judgment-debtor on receipt of the arrears of land revenue from him. By such restoration, the land became a free grant in favour of Syed Basheer Ahmed and the same was exclusively for his benefits. By virtue of such restoration Syed Basheer Ahmed acquired a title over the property and also a right to alienate the lands. Accordingly he sold the lands to Rahmathunnisa Begum alias Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed from whom the appellant/defendant purchased the same. By virtue of such purchase the defendant perfected her title to the properties. Though the decree-holder/Padmanabha Kamath who was the plaintiff's vendor had initiated proceedings against Syed Basheer Ahmed earlier to forfeiture of the lands by the Government, the forfeiture took place earlier to Padmanabha Kamath obtaining a decree against Syed Basheer Ahmed and the decree-holder/Padmanabha Kamath purchased the lands in Execution Case No. 6 of 1952-53 on 3.9.1953. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of Section 54 of the 1888 Code whatever rights Basheer Ahmed had were obliterated by virtue of forfeiture of the lands by the Government. It was also contended that the question of pleading equity by the plaintiff does not arise in this case. Sri Karanth, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant, while reiterating the above contentions raised before the Courts below submitted that in view of Section 54 of 1888 Code the decree-holder did not acquire any right, title or interest over the property and as such the transfer of the lands made by him (Padmanabha Kamath) in favour of the plaintiff was not a valid one as no title was passed on to the plaintiff. When there was a forfeiture and resumption it shall be presumed that whatever right the earlier occupant had was extinguished and by virtue of restoration of lands such occupant became a holder of fresh grant free from all encumbrances. According to him, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act also disentitles the plaintiff and her vendor in setting up any claim over the lands. In support of his contentions Sri. Karanth placed reliance on the following Authorities:

(1) BATCHU RAMAYYA v. DHARA SATCHI 20 Madras L.J.635, wherein the High Court of Judicature at Madras, while interpreting the scope of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and alienation of service inam lands held that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be invoked in favour of alienee of the inam land whose alienation is wholly void under the law.

(2) PRASANNA KUMAR MOOKERJEE v. SRIKANTHA ROUT ILR Vol XL Calcutta 173, the Calcutta High Court, while considering non-payment or discontinuance of payment of rent, acquiescence, etc. held that non-payment of rent or discontinuance of payment of rent did not by itself constitute adverse possession. The relevant observations in the said Decisions regarding the scope of Section 43 and the estoppel are as follows:

"It need not be disputed that if a grantor, who has no title or a defective title or an estate less than what he assumes to grant conveys with warranty or covenants of like import, and subsequently, acquires the title or estate which he purports to convey, or, perfects his title, such after-acquired or perfected title will enure to the grantee as to his benefit by way of estoppel. .. ..

In case of a voluntary private alienation, the deed, either expressly or by necessary implication, shows that the grantor intended to convey and that the grantee expected to become vested with an estate of a particular kind: the deed may consequently found an estoppel, although it contains no technical covenents. .. ..

The case of an execution sale, however, stands on an obviously different footing. The decree-holder does not guarantee the title of the judgment-debtor; the intending purchaser knows that under the law he can acquire nothing beyond the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor.

.. ..

It was held that the extent of an execution raises an estoppel as much as in the case of conveyance, the contrary view, namely, that an execution sale of property not belonging to the judgment-debtor does not estop him from asserting against the purchaser title subsequently acquired, has been maintained in cases of recognised authority."

(3) In ABDUL REHMAN IBRAHIM v. VINAYAK JAYAVANTRAO DESHMUKH 29 Bombay L.R. 1056, while explaining forfeiture and re-sale of the mortgaged property, the High Court of Bombay held as follows:

"The right to redeem was lost owing to the forfeiture of the land under the original Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code; and that before the plaintiff could succeed he must show that the forfeiture and the revenue sale were due to the default of the mortgagee in not paying the assessment and that the income of the land was sufficient to pay the assessment or that in some way the mortgagor had put the mortgagee in funds wherewith to pay the assessment."

(4) SABAPATHI PILLAY v. THANDAVABOYA ODAYAR ILR Vol. XVIII Madras 309, the High Court of Judicature at Madras held thus:

"A purchaser bought in Court auction specific items of properties said to belong to a member of a joint Hindu family. Subsequently there was a partition decree and only some of these items fell to the share of the judgment-debtor.

Held, that the purchaser was entitled to only such of the items as are common to the sale certificate and the share of the judgment-debtor under the decree, and that he could not compel the judgment-debtor to give him other properties in substitution for the remaining properties comprised in the sale certificate."

(5) In NANAK CHAND v. GANDU RAM AND ORS. AIR 1938 Lahore 360, the High Court of Lahore while explaining the scope of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act held as follows:

"where certain share of a person is sold by a Court sale though in fact he was not entitled to any such share at the time of the sale but subsequent to sale has become entitled to such share, such person in equity should not be compelled to make good from the share which he subsequently acquires the title conveyed to vendee at the Court sale because there can be no question of equities in the case of Court sale."

(6). NARAYAN GANESH VARDE v. DAUD TARAPORWALA AND ANR., , wherein the Bombay High Court explaining the scope of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure held thus:

"An attachment does not create any interest in the property attached. It does not create any lien in favour of the attaching creditor. It only prevents alienation of the property on the part of the judgment-debtor, so that if the judgment-debtor alienates the property contrary to attachment, then the alienation becomes void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment under Section

64."

(7) VEDU SHIYLAL v. KALU UKHARDU ILR Vol.37 Bombay 692, wherein the Bombay High Court while explaining the scope of Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the position of the mortgagor in possession and also the forfeiture of land on account of failure to pay assessment held thus:

" In 1895, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 mortgaged their lands to the plaintiff one of the conditions of the mortgage being that the mortgagors were to remain in possession of the land, and to pay the Government assessment. Default having occurred in payment of assessment, the Collector demanded payment first from mortgagors and then from the mortgagee. The latter expressed his willingness to pay, if he was placed into possession of the land. The Collector eventually forfeited the land in 1902; but shortly afterwards re-granted it to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code Bombay Act V of 1879, amended by Bombay Act VI of 1901) on a new tenure. The mortgagee (Plaintiff) next obtained a decree on his mortgage; and in execution of it attached the land. The attachment was, however, raised by the Revenue Authorities under Section 70 of the Code. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the land was liable to be attached and sold in execution of his decree. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. On appeal:-

Held, that the land was, under the operation of Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, vested in defendants Nos. 1 and 2 free from the incumbrance which had been created and from the equities theretofore existing between them and the plaintiff."

Sri Karanth also placed reliance on the Decision of the Allahabad High Court in RADHA BAI v. KAMOD SINGH AND ORS. ILR Vol. XXX Allahabad 38, regarding the effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act; the Decision of the Privy Council in FERNANDO v. GUNATILLAKA ILR 1921 PC 138 and the Decision of the Allahabad High Court in LALA NAND LAL v. SUNDER LAL AND OTHERS AIR (31) 1944 Allahabad 17. Thus contending, Sri Karanth submitted that a finding be given that by virtue of restoration of possession, Syed Basheer Ahmed became a fresh grant-holder without any lien, charge, encumbrance whatsoever which created earlier and by virtue of such restoration Syed Basheer Ahmed acquired right, title and interest over the lands and as such the sale by Syed Basheer Ahmed in favour of Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed was a valid transfer and the plaintiff's vendor Padmanabha Karnath did not acquire any title to the property under the Sale Certificate issued in O.S.No. 146 and 1948 on the file of the High Court of Madras and in Execution Case No. 6 of 1953 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 2.1.1956 (Ex.P.1) executed by Padmanabha Kamath in favour of the plaintiff was not a valid one. Consequently, the Rectification Deed dated 16.12.1957 (Ex.P.2). executed by Padmanabha Kamath in favour of the plaintiff also not a valid one. Thus, he submitted that the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title or interest on the lands in question.

9. As an answer to the above contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant, Sri Raghavachar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, submitted as follows:

Forfeiture of the lands belonged to Syed Basheer Ahmed by the Government had not resulted in extinguishment of his right over the property. Forfeiture was merely postponement of Syed Basheer Ahmed's right of ownership. He was at liberty to re-claim the lands by paying the land revenue. Though forfeiture took place earlier to purchasing the lands by Padmanabha Kamath in Court auction, but by restoration of the lands Padmanabha Kamath became the owner of the lands from the date he purchased the same in Court auction and his sale in favour of plaintiff a valid one. By the said sale plaintiff was put in possession of the lands and continued to be in possession. By restoration, the right of Syed Basheer Ahmed which was kept in abeyance by forfeiture reverted back to the original date and therefore Syed Basheer Ahmed deemed to have, right, title and interest over the lands on the date Padmanabha Kamath obtained a decree in the High Court of Madras against Syed Basheer Ahmed. By Court safe Padmanabha Kamath became absolute owner. Thus, purchase of the lands by Padmanabha Kamath and their sale to plaintiff was quite valid. According to Sri Raghavachar, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, has no application to the case on hand. He also submitted that the transfer, if any, made by Syed Basheer Ahmed in favour of the defendant was not valid in law and the same not binding on the plaintiff. Moreover from the date of Exhibit P.1 (Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff) till 1961 it was the plaintiff who was in, possession and enjoyment of the property. Syed Basheer Ahmed was aware of this plaintiff's possession. But, with a view to defraud the plaintiff, Syed Basheer Ahmed entered into secret sale transactions with Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed who in turn sold the lands to the defendant. On the basis of the illegal transaction the defendant attempted to assert her title to the property. According to Sri Raghavachar, Section 54 of the 1888 Code and Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code differ on the effect of restoration. He also submitted that even the Authorities relied upon by Sri Karanth on facts are not applicable to the case on hand. According to him, the Authorities applicable to the case are the following:

(1) BALAJI RAO alias BALAKRISHNA RAO v. SITHA-RAMAYYA XVII Mysore Chief Court Reports 76, 273, wherein it has been held thus:

"Neither the Mysore Land Revenue Code nor the Rules thereunder contemplate the purchase on behalf of Government of land which has been 'forfeited' by reason of non-payment of the land revenue.

A mere forfeiture, while it no doubt operates, so far as Government is concerned, as a resumption of the holding, does not, unless it is followed by a sale, necessarily extinguish rights and equities that may be subsisting as between private parties."

(2) In NAGAPPA GOWDA AND OTHERS v. DODDAMANE GURUPADAPPA AND ANR.AIR 1954 Mysore 39, while dealing with the effect of restoration of forfeited land to the defaulter under Section 54 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, this Court held thus:

"Mr. Sadanandaswamy has next urged that as the suit land had been forfeited to Government under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and transferred to 'Government Phada' in the year 1937 for non-payment of land revenue, whatever rights Sundarasastry acquired under his purchase in Court sale were lost. He represents that the khata of the land stood in the name of a deceased man Krishnabhatta when the land was forfeited; that it was restored to Benavannagowda and that the latter must be deemed to have become its absolute owner again after Sundarasastry lost his rights by the forfeiture. Section 54, Land Revenue Code is, however, clear and a mere forfeiture followed by the restoration to the defaulting 'holder' Benavannagowda does not wipe out all the earlier rights. It has also been held by this Court in '18 Mys. CCR 76 (Q) that neither the Mysore Land Revenue Code nor the rules thereunder contemplate the purchase on behalf of Government land which has been 'forfeited' by reason of non-payment of the land revenue; and a mere forfeiture, while it no doubt operates, so far as Government is concerned, as a resumption of the holding, does not unless it is folfowed by a sale, necessarily extinguish rights and equities that may be subsisting as between private parties. There an exactly similar contention that the restoration of the Khata to the defaulter was equivalent to a new and absolute grant of the land freed from all previously existing rights and equities was negatived. There is therefore no substance in this contention which has been rightly held against Respondent 1 by the District Judge."

(3). In BHOGARA BHARAMAPPA v. RUDRAPPA AND ORS. AIR 1955 Mysore 13, this Court while dealing with forfeiture under the Mysore Land Revenue Code held as follows:

"Under Section 54 it is undoubtedly open to the Deputy Commissioner to forfeit not all the rights liable for forfeiture under that Section, but only those of the immediate defaulter as they stand at the time, if he thinks fit, without affecting tenure, encumbrances and rights derived from the immediate defaulter or his predecessor-in-title.

... ... ...

A mere forfeiture while it no doubt operates so far as Government is concerned, as a resumption of the holding, does not, unless it is followed by a sale, necessarily extinguish rights and equities that may be subsisting as between private parties. It is obviously open to Government, and generally followed as a policy, to restore the forfeited occupancy in the event of the arrears being paid."

(4) AMOLAK BANECHAND AND OTHERS v. DHONDI VALAD KHANDU BHOSLE AND ANR ILR Vol.XXX Bombay 466, wherein while interpreting Sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on the arrears of assessment, forfeiture by Government, mortgage, land in possession of the occupant, regrant by Government to the occupant, suit by mortgagee to recover possession, equities arising out of the conduct of the parties, the High Court of Bombay held as follows:

"Forfeiture ordinarily implies the loss of a legal right by reason of some breach of obligation.

When arrears of assessment are levied by sale, then Section 56 of the Land Revenue Code (Bom. Act V of 1879) in pursuance of an obvious policy, empowers the Collector to sell "freed from all tenures, incumbrances and rights created by the occupant.... or any of his predecessors-in-title or in anywise subsisting against such occupant." Should the Collector otherwise dispose of the occupancy, the Section affords no such protection, and the legal relations must be determined by reference to the ordinary law. So judged, the effect of a forfeiture and the subsequent acquisition of the forfeited property are subject to the control of equities arising out of the conduct of the parties."

(5) In the case of CHANGAPPA v. SATYAPALA RFA No.110 of 1970 - 1974(2) KLJ Sh.N.No. 300, a Division Bench of this Court while explaining the revenue forfeiture of land held as follows:

"A coffee estate of 46 acres 28 guntas belonging to the joint family of S was forfeited in 1932 for arrears of land revenue. In 1957 the forfeiture was annulled and the lands were restored to the Khata of S, on his paying the arrears of land revenue. S sold the lands to defts for discharging debts contracted for obtaining restoration of the lands. The sons of S (S being dead) sued for partition and possession and for mesne profits.

Held, (1) When the order of forfeiture was annulled and the Khata restored, the old title got revived for the benefit of all the members of the joint family, subject to equities, (i.e.) the liability to contribute their share of the amount paid for obtaining restoration."

Thus arguing Sri Raghavachar submitted that mere forfeiture does not necessarily extinguish rights and equities between private parties. According to him, after forfeiture it is the normal practice of the Government to restore the property to the occupant in the event of the arrears being paid. When arrears of revenue are paid, the land will be restored to the occupant and by such restoration the position of the occupant will be as that of his original position. According to him, forfeiture does not take away the earlier rights and equities that may be subsisting as between the private parties. He submitted that the plaintiff purchased the property for a valuable consideration and started cultivating the same. Whereas the defendant on the basis of the secret and illegal sale in her favour attempted to deny the plaintiff's title to the property. The conduct of the defendant was nothing but a resultant of fraud played by Syed Basheer Ahmed, the original owner. As such the finding shall be that Padmanabha Kamath had acquired through Court auction sale a valid title to the lands and the transfer made by him in favour of the plaintiff was a valid one. By such sale transaction dated 2.1.1956 (Ex.P.1) the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the lands in question. Thus the sale transaction between the defendant and her vendors or prede-cessors-in-title was neither valid nor binding on the plaintiff.

10. In order to appreciate the different stand taken by both sides it is proper to extract hereunder the following provisions of the 1888 Code and the Rules and also the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 of the 1888 Code reads thus:

"54. Arrears of land revenue due on account of land by any landholder shall be a paramount charge on the holding and every part thereof, failure in payment of which shall make the occupancy or alienated holding, together with all rights of the occupant or holder over all trees, crops, buildings and things attached to the land, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the land, liable to forfeiture, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner may levy all sums in arrears by sale of the occupancy or alienated holding, or may otherwise dispose of such occupancy or alienated holding under rules or orders made in this behalf under Section 233, and such occupancy or alienated holding when disposed of, whether by sale as aforesaid, or by transfer to another person or otherwise howsoever, except by restoration to the defaulter, shall, unless the Deputy Commissioner otherwise directs, be deemed to be freed from all tenures, rights, incumbrances and equities theretofore created by the occupant or holder or any of his predecessors in title or in anywise subsisting as against such occupant or holder, but so as not to affect the rights of kadim tenants or permanent tenants in alienated holdings."

Section 55 of the 1888 Code reads thus:

"55. It shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner, in the event of the forfeiture of a holding through any defaulter in payment or other failure occasioning such forfeiture under the last preceding Section or any law for the time being in force, to take immediate possession of the land embraced within such holding, and to dispose of the same by placing it in the possession of the purchaser or other person entitled to hold it according to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force."

Section 76 of the 1888 Code speaks about the occupant or holder liable to continue for all demands until the occupancy pr holding is duly relinquished or transferred. It reads thus:

"76. The registered occupant or the holder of alienated land shall continue liable for the land revenue due on the occupancy or alienated holding and for all other lawful demands of Government in respect of the same, until such time as the occupancy or alienated holding is relinquished or transferred, under any of the provisions of this Act, to the name of any other person; and the Deputy Commissioner shall not be bound in any case to recognize any person to whom any interest in any portion of an occupancy or alienated holding has been assigned, unless the transfer has been recorded in the revenue records in accordance with the foregoing provisions."

Chapter XI of the 1888 Code deals with the realisation of the land revenue and other revenue demands. Section 142 which comes under Chapter XI prescribes that it is the primary responsibility of the registered occupant to pay land revenue of unalienated land. It reads thus:

"142. The registered occupant shall be primarily responsible to Government for the land revenue of unalienated land, and the superior holder shall be primarily responsible to Government for the land revenue of alienated land.

On failure of the person primarily responsible to Government for the land revenue to pay the same according to the rules legally prescribed in that behalf, it may be recovered from the co-occupant of unalienated land or the co-sharer of alienated land, or in either case from the inferior holder or person in actual occupation of the land.

When the land revenue is recovered from any such occupant, co-sharer, inferior holder, or other person, he shall be allowed credit for all payments which he may have made to the registered occupant, or superior holder, or to his landlord, at or after the prescribed or usual times of such payments, and he shall be entitled to credit in account with the registered occupant or superior holder or with his landlord for the amount recovered from him."

Section 152 which regulates payment of land revenue reads thus:

"152. Land revenue, except when it is recovered under the provisions of the foregoing Sections 146 to 150, shall be payable at such times, in such instalments, to such persons and at such places as may, from time to time, be determined by the orders of Government."

Section 153 says who is the defaulter. It reads:

"153. Any sum not so paid becomes thereupon an arrear of land revenue; and the persons responsible for it, whether under the provisions of Section 142 or of any other Section, become defaulters."

Section 156 which speaks about the recovery of arrears reads thus:

"156. An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by the following processes:-

(a) by serving a written notice of demand on the defaulter under Section 158;

(b) by forfeiture of the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which the arrear is due under Section 159;

(c) by distraint and sale of the defaulter's movable property under Section 160;

(d) by sale of the defaulter's immovable property under Section 161;

(e) by arrest and imprisonment of the defaulter under Section 163 and 164;

(f) in the case of alienated holdings consisting of entire villages, or shares of villages by attachment of the said villages or shares of villages under Sections 165 to 169,"

Section 159 reads as under;

"159. The Deputy Commissioner may declare the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which an arrear of land revenue is due to be forfeited to Government, and sell or otherwise dispose of the same under the provisions of Section 54 and 55, and credit the proceeds, if any to the defaulter's accounts."

Section 161 is as under;

"161. The Deputy Commissioner may also cause the right, title and interest of the defaulter in any immovable property, other than the land on which the arrear is due, to be sold."

Rule 38 of the Land Revenue Rules empowers the Deputy Commissioner that in his discretion he may restore any forfeited occupancy or alienated holding at any time on payment of the arrear in respect of which the forfeiture was incurred together with all costs and charges lawfully due by the defaulter.

11. The relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, are Sections 56, 57 and 151. Section 56 read as under:

"56. Arrears of land revenue due on account of land by any landholder shall be a paramount charge on the holding and every part thereof, failure in payment of which shall make the occupancy or alienated holding together with all rights of the occupant or holder over all trees, crops, buildings and things attached to the land or permanently fastened to anything attached to the land liable to forfeiture, whereupon the Collector may levy all sums in arrears by sale of the occupancy or alienated holding or may otherwise dispose of such occupancy or alienated holding under rules made in this behalf under Section 214, and such occupancy or alienated holding when disposed of, whether by sale as aforesaid, or by restoration to the defaulter, or by transfer to another person or otherwise howsoever, shall, unless the Collector otherwise directs, be deemed to be freed from all tenures, rights, incumbrances and equities theretofore created in favour of any person other than the Government in respect of such occupancy or holding."

Section 57 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code reads thus:

"57. It shall be lawful for the Collector in the event of the forfeiture of a holding through any default in payment or other failure occasioning such forfeiture under the last Section or any law for the time being in force, to take immediate possession of such holding, and to dispose of the same by placing it in the possession of the purchaser or other person entitled to hold it according to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force."

Section 151 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code reads thus:

"151. The said processes may be employed for the recovery of arrears of former years as well as of the current year, but the preferences given by Sections 137 and 138 shall apply only to demands for the current year:

Provided that any process commenced in the current year shall be entitled to the said preference, notwithstanding that it may not be fully executed within that year."

12. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in the property transferred. It reads thus:

"43. Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immoveabte property, and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property, at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.

Nothing in this Section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option."

Section 6(i) of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:

"6. Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force:

... ...

(i) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorize a tenant having an untransferrable right of occupancy, the farmer of an estate in respect of which default has been made in paying revenue, or the lessee of an estate under the management of a Court of Wards, to assign his interest as such tenant, farmer or lessee."

13. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits private plienation of property after attachment reads thus:

"Section 64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be void:-

Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.."

14. Though at first sight Section 54 of the 1888 Code and Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code look as identical, on a close scrutiny of the above 2 Sections it can be seen that in Section 54 of the 1888 Code a departure has been made, viz., that on forfeiture of land its disposal whether by sale or transfer to another person or otherwise howsoever De deemed to be freed from all tenures, rights, incumbrances and equities theretofore created by the occupant or holder or any of his predecessors in title or in anywise subsisting as against such occupant or holder except by restoration to the defaulter which means if there is any restoration of the land to the defaulter be deemed to be freed from all tenures, rights, incumbrances and equities thereto created by the occupant or holder or any of his predecessors in title or in anywise subsisting as against such occupant or holder will revive. Whereas Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code the word 'except' is not there. From this it is clear that Legislature thought all charges, encumbrances, etc. on the property which were subsisting at the time of forfeiture will revive in case such forfeited lands are restored to the original occupant.

15. The Authorities on which reliance was placed by Sri Karanth are those which considered the scope of Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code or the effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and not on Section 54 of the 1888 Code. On comparison, the Authorities relied upon by Sri Karanth have no application to the case on hand so also Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand, the Authorities on which reliance was placed by Sri Raghavachar in all fours are applicable to the case on hand. Where Section 54 of the 1888 Code was an issue for consideration, this Court found that forfeiture does not extinguish the right and equity between private parties and also held that by restoration the properties have been reverted back to the original position. Apart from this, the evidence available in the case goes to show that subsequent to Court auction Padmanabha Kamath sold the land to the plaintiff who continued in possession till 1961. There is nothing to show that during this period either Syed Basheer Ahmed or the Government was in possession of the lands. Further, there is nothing to show that after the arrears were paid and before the restoration a request was made to the Court by auction purchaser that he is relinquishing his rights over the lands. The possession of the plaintiff was also not an illegal one, as her vendor was put in possession of the lands at the instance of the executing Court. The Judgment debtor did not choose to challenge the same. Thus, the plaintiff's vendor was in lawful possession at the time of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (Exhibit P.1). He (Plaintiff's vendor-Padmanabha Kamath) had absolute right to transfer the lands which he transferred to the plaintiff under the sale deed, Exhibit P.1. Hence, restoration of land in favour of the Judgment-debtor Syed Basheer Ahmed - did not make him a fresh grantee. But, on the other hand he was placed in the original position, viz., position in which he was the owner on the date of forfeiture. As an owner he was entitled to be in possession. When he suffered a decree and his properties were brought to sale to satisfy the decree, the Judgment-debtor (Syed Basheer Ahmed) did not choose to challenge it. Hence, the purchase by Padmanabha Kamath a valid one. The purchase of the lands by Padmanabha Kamath in Court auction and the sale by him to the plaintiff were all earlier to the sale transactions that took place between Syed Basheer Ahmed and Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed and the subsequent sale by Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed to the defendant on 1.4.1966. On the date of sale by Syed Basheer Ahmed in favour of Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed whatever rights Syed Basheer Ahmed had on the lands had already been conferred on Padmanabha Kamath by the Court auction sale and such rights in turn were transferred by Padmanabha Kamath in favour of the plaintiff under the sale deed Exhibit P.1. Hence, the sale transactions between Syed Basheer Ahmed and Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed and between Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed and the defendant were inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. The possession of the defendant, if any, was also illegal and unauthorised.

16. Hence, my finding as to the legal effect of the order of the restoration of the land in favour of Syed Basheer Ahmed is that it revived his ownership and whatever right, title and interest he had over the lands as on the date of forfeiture of the said lands reverted back. By purchasing the said lands in Court auction, Padmanabha Kamath became an absolute owner of the lands. Transfer of the said lands by him to the plaintiff a valid one. Thus the plaintiff acquired right of ownership over the lands. Whereas, the sales by Syed Basheer Ahmed to Bathulla Begum and Nazir Ahmed from whom the defendant purchased the lands in question were neither valid nor binding on the plaintiff, as prior to these sales whatever right, title and interest Syed Basheer Ahmed had over these lands in fact had extinguished and had vested in Padmanabha Kamath and he in turn had conveyed the same to the plaintiff by way of sale.

LAND ACQUISITION FINAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN ONE YEAR

noreply@blogger.com (Advocate Sridharababu) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:43:00 -0700