SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 762

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Mangatu Ram – Respondent


ORDER

In CA Nos. 3816, 3818-35 4070-4139, 3947, 4157-58, 4036-69, 4033-35, 3936-46/97 @ SLP Nos. 1013, 1545-1662, 3004-73, 19017, 8255-56/95, 2947-80, 2920-22 and 16892-902/96)

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on June 18, 1984. The land Acquisition Collector classified the lands into four blocks, viz., A, B, C and D and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 25,000/- and 15,000/- respectively. The total of 3781 kanals and 2 marlas and 1138 kanals and 11 marlas of land was acquired and compensation was accordingly granted. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge classified the lands as Classes A and B and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- for Class A and @ Rs. 50,000/- for Class B . On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted uniform rate of compensation @ Rs. 1,05,000/-. The Division Bench heard L.P.A. No. 664/91 and batch and dismissed the appeals on January 5, 1994. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

2. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the view of the High





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top