Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Munshiya (Dead) Thr Lrs. vs State Of U.P .

Supreme Court17 July 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

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

1

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dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the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