U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus RISHABH ISPAT LTD. AND ORS.

U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus RISHABH ISPAT LTD. AND ORS.

The findings of the Reference Court and High Court regarding quantum of compensation are based on proper appreciation of evidence and principles under the Act and do not warrant interference; compensation cannot be reduced below the offer of Land Acquisition Collector; the plea regarding unauthorized possession or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation; Respondent: Rishabh Ispat Ltd. and Ors.; Respondent: Claimants/Land Owners (various parties); Other: Appearing Parties (others)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal From Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Determination of Compensation, Reference Proceedings Under S.18, Sale Deed Comparables, Land Acquired for Public Purpose, Acceptance Without Protest, Ownership and Vesting Under U.p. Zamindari Abolition Act
Land Acquisition Compensation Law Determination of Compensation Reference Proceedings Under S.18 Sale Deed Comparables Land Acquired for Public Purpose Acceptance Without Protest Ownership and Vesting Under U.p. Zamindari Abolition Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation

Appellant

Rishabh Ispat Ltd. and Ors.

Respondent

Claimants/Land Owners (various parties)

Respondent

Appearing Parties (others)

Other

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compensation awarded by Reference Court and enhanced by High Court was justified under Land Acquisition Act
  2. 2 Whether claimants accepted compensation without protest and were thus not entitled to reference under s.18
  3. 3 Whether claimants' possession was unauthorized and land vested in State, precluding compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of the Reference Court and High Court regarding quantum of compensation are based on proper appreciation of evidence and principles under the Act and do not warrant interference; compensation cannot be reduced below the offer of Land Acquisition Collector; the plea regarding unauthorized possession or vesting cannot be raised in s.18 proceedings absent evidence; acceptance with protest is established by prompt filing of references; Section 4 Notification is not exhausted where Section 6 Notification is invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • All appeals dismissed without any order as to costs