ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 897 
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.I 0831 of2016) 
NOVEMBER29, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Compensation - All relevant facets i.e. location of the land in 
village Masoodabad, notifications for acquisition under the 'Act' 
as well as the quantification of compensation awarded by the Land 
Acquisition officer, Reference Court and High Court are the same 
as in the Supreme Court decision in Suresh Prasad case - Therefore, 
appellants· granted same compensation i.e. Rs.24 lacs per acre along 
with other statutory benefits under the Act including interest as 
payable in terms of the above decision. 
Compensation -All relevant facets i.e. location of the land in 
village, Bamnoli, notifications for acquisition under the 'Act' as 
well as the quantification of compensation awarded by the Land 
Acquisition officer, Reference Court and High Court are the same 
as in the Supreme Court decision in Charan Singh case - Therefore, 
appellants granted same co111pensation i.e. Rs.25 lacs per acre for 
land in Block 'A' and Rs. 22 lacs per acre for land in Block 'B' 
along with other statuto1y benefits under the Act including interest 
as payable in terms of the above decision. 
Compensation - All relevant facets i.e. location of the land in 
village Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Bharthal, notifications for 
acquisition under the 'Act' as well as the quantification of 
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer, Reference 
Court and High Court are the same as in the Supreme Court decision 
in Impulse India case - Therefore, appellants granted same 
compensation i.e. Rs.21 lacs per acre for land in Block 'A' and 
Rs.19 lacs per acre for land in J!lock 'B' along with other statutory 
benefits under the Act including interest as payable in terms of the 
above decision. 
Suresh Prasad@ Hari Kishan & Ors. v. Union of India 
897 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
& Am: (2.Q16) 12 SCALE 402; Charan Singh & Ors. 
B 
Etc. v. Union of India & Am: (2016) 12 SCALE 400; 
Impulse India Pvt, Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr: (2016) 
12 SCALE 396 - followed. 
Case Law Reference 
(2016) 12 SCALE 402 
(2016) 12 SCALE 400 
(2016) 12 SCALE 396 
followed 
followed 
followed 
Para2 
Para4 
Para6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10831 
C 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2012 of the High Court 
of Delhi in L.A. Appeal No. 503 of2011 
WITH 
D 
C. A. Nos. 10832, 10833, 10834, 10835, 10836, 10838, 10839, 
E 
F 
· 10840, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10849, 10850of2016. 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Dev Prakash Bhardwaj, Advs. for the 
Appellants. 
R. Balasubramaniam, Ananya Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Aarti 
Sharma, Shadman Ali, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, M. K. Maroria (For D. 
S. Mahra), Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (For Mis. Saharya & 
Co.), Ashwani Kumar, Rahul Bhatia, Ms. Garima Prashad, Ms. Rachana 
Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Govind Goel, Ankit Goel, 
Karri Venkata Reddy (For Dr. Kailash Chand), Ms. Shashi Kiran, 
Abhiuday Chandra, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
_,...AMITAVAROY, J. I. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Shanna, learned 
cou-;;sel for the' appellants and Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Mr. Vishnu B. 
Saharya, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms. Shashi Ki ran, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, 
G 
Mr. Govind Goel an~ Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel for the 
respondents. 
(A) C.A. No. 10838 of 2016 @ SLP (C) No. 32064 of 2015, 
C.A. No. 10839 of 2016 @ SLP (C) N'o. 32065 of 2015, C.A. 
No. 10840 of 2016 @ SLP (C) No. 32066 of 2015.and C.A. 
H 
No. 10843 of 2016 @ SLP (C) No. 32059 of 2015 
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
fAMITAVA ROY, J.l 
2. It is submitted at the Bar, that the verdict rendered by this 
Court in Civil Appeal No.1726 of2015 (dated 18.03.2015)-Suresh 
Prasad@, Hari Kishan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., deciding 
the same along with a batch of appeals would adequately answer the 
issues raised herein, as the all relevant facets i.e. locatio11 of the land in 
village Masoodabad, notifications for acquisition under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the' Act') as well as the quantification 
of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Reference 
Court and the High Court ar~ same. In this view of the matter further 
dilation of individual facts is considered inessential. 
3. On a consideration of the explan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.