Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusSMT. S.A. ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC.

Citation
1996 INSC 393
Decided
15 March 1996
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Holding

The appeal is allowed, following the precedent set in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., without costs.

Summary

The State of Goa appealed a Bombay High Court order concerning land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal raised issues already decided in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., which the Court affirmed applied to the present case. After condoning delay and granting leave, the Court held that the principles laid down in Babua Ram governed the dispute and allowed the appeal. No costs were awarded to either party. The decision essentially upheld the lower court’s order in line with the earlier precedent.

Issues considered

  • What legal principles from Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. apply to the present land acquisition dispute?
  • Whether the procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were complied with in the impugned order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land acquisitionLand Acquisition Act 1894Supreme Court precedentCivil appealProcedural law

Judgment

                          STATE OF GOA AND ANR.                                   A
                                          v.
                    SMT. S.A. ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC.

                                MARCH 15, 1996

                                                                                  B
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

         Land Acquisition~ontroversy in issue covered by earlier judg-
    ment-Disposal in terms of that judgment.                                      C

          Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 689, relied
    on.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5231 of                  D
    1996 Etc.
j

         From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.93 of the Bombay High
    Court in W.P. No. 229 of 1993.

          S.K. Mehta for the Appellants.                                          E

          P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Conrt was delivered :
                                                                                  F
          Delay condoned.

          Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

         The controversy raised in this case is covered by the judgment of this
    Court in Babua Ram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 68.9.          G

         Following the judgment, the appeals are allowed, but, in the cir-
    cumstances, without costs.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeals allowed;
                                         491


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.