Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Amanullah Khan vs The State of Haryana

Civil AppealDecided 8 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2022
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari

Background

Between 1986 and 1995, the State of Haryana acquired land in village Ajronda, District Faridabad under three separate notifications for purposes including a green belt, institutional use, and commercial/residential development. The affected landowners were unhappy with the compensation fixed at various stages (by the Land Acquisition Collector, then enhanced by the Reference Court, then further revised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court), and a large group of them, including the appellant Amanullah Khan, filed appeals before the Supreme Court seeking higher compensation, pointing out that the Court had already fixed higher rates for other landowners whose land was acquired under the very same notifications.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that in an earlier judgment (Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019), it had already determined compensation rates for land acquired under these same three notifications affecting the same village: Rs. 435, Rs. 860 and Rs. 1,210 per square yard respectively for the three notifications. Applying the principle that similarly situated landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification are entitled to parity in compensation, the Court held that the present appellants were also entitled to these same enhanced rates. All the connected appeals were partly allowed and compensation was fixed accordingly, though the Court denied the appellants interest/statutory benefits for the period between the High Court's judgment and the filing of their appeals, since their appeals had been delayed and the delay was condoned on that condition.

Lesson Learnt

When the government acquires land under a single notification affecting many landowners, all of them are entitled to the same rate of compensation that the courts eventually fix for any one of them, but landowners who delay in pursuing their own claims may still lose out on interest for the period of delay, even if they ultimately win parity in the compensation rate.

Amanullah Khan vs The State of Haryana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware