In Brief
This case involved a dispute over whether residential land acquired for urban development should be excluded from acquisition. The appellant claimed a house existed on the land before the acquisition notice was issued in 1997. However, the Financial Commissioner's investigation found that revenue entries showing the structure were made in different ink and contained signs of tampering, contradicting contemporaneous official records that showed the land as vacant. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, holding that the tampered entries could not be relied upon to prove the house's pre-notification existence. The Court also rejected the appellant's claim that compensation could be withheld, since compensation had been tendered but not collected. All three appeals were dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.