In Brief
This case concerned whether a High Court properly reduced land acquisition compensation awarded by a lower court based on a judgment from a different village. The Supreme Court held that it was improper to rely on awards from differently situated properties without following mandatory procedural steps: an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be filed, reasons must be recorded, and the affected party must be given an opportunity to prove dissimilarity of location, value, and timing. Awards relating to comparably situated land from the same locality where acquisition occurred are proper evidence. The Court restored the lower court's compensation of Rs. 264 per square meter, setting aside the High Court's reduction."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.