Munshiya (Dead) Thr Lrs. vs State Of U.P .
- Neutral2017 INSC 625
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where adjacent land owners in a land acquisition case have received compensation at a particular rate which has become final through dismissal of appeals and Special Leave Petitions, other similarly situated land owners in the same acquisition are entitled to compensation at the same rate. Where there has been delay in proceedings, whether before the High Court or the Supreme Court, a claimant is not entitled to statutory benefits for the period covered by such delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9142 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3502 OF 2017 ]
MUNSHIYA (DEAD) THR LRS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We find that the appellants are aggrieved since
their cases have been remanded by the High Court to
the Reference Court for fresh consideration, taking
note of the awards passed by the Coordinate Bench of
the Reference Court.
3. Apparently, this confusion has arisen because the
Reference in respect of the same Notification are
handled by different district courts.
4. We request the High Court, on the Administrative
Side, to look into this difficulty and see that the
References in respect of the same acquisition are
heard by the same Bench.
Signature Not Verified
5. Coming to the facts of this case, it cannot be of Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:53:00 IST Reason: serious dispute that the adjacent land owners have
been granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per
sq. yard. That grant has become final since the 2
appeals and the Special Leave Petitions have been
dismissed.
6. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal.
The appellants shall be entitled to the land value at
the rate of Rs. 65/- per sq. yard and shall also be
entitled to all statutory benefits.
7. We make it clear that the appellants shall not be
entitled to any statutory benefits for the period
covered by any delay, either before the High Court or
before this Court.
8. I.A.No.2 – the application for impleadment is
dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the
liberty available to the applicant to take recourse
to any other remedy.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
July 17, 2017.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free