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

Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and Anr. vs. Ram Newaj and others

Civil AppealDecided 20 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2916 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority had acquired three plots of land; compensation for the acquisition was deposited in the government Treasury (not directly with a court), while possession of the land had already been taken back in 2005. The original landowners approached the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), arguing that because the compensation was never deposited in court, the acquisition should be treated as having "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court agreed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision, and held the acquisition had lapsed. The Development Authority appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the precedent the High Court relied on had since been overtaken by a later, definitive five-judge Constitution Bench ruling (Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, 2020), which clarified that non-deposit of compensation in court does not, by itself, cause an acquisition to lapse: what matters is whether possession was taken and whether compensation was actually paid or tendered to landowners. Since possession here had been taken in 2005 and compensation had been deposited (in the treasury), the acquisition had not lapsed. The Court accordingly quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the landowners' writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

Under land acquisition law, an acquisition is not automatically treated as lapsed merely because compensation was deposited in the government treasury rather than directly in court: what decides the question is whether possession was taken and whether compensation was actually paid or tendered to the landowner.

Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and Anr. vs. Ram Newaj and others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware