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

Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 20 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Several Development Authorities in Uttar Pradesh (Faizabad-Ayodhya and Moradabad) had acquired land decades earlier under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but could not finalize the compensation award before the new 2013 Act came into force because landowners had obtained court stays on the acquisition. The Allahabad High Court ruled that since no award existed on the date the 2013 Act commenced, the landowners were entitled to the (generally higher) compensation calculated under the new 2013 Act. The Development Authorities appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the landowners should not benefit from delays that the landowners themselves caused by obtaining the interim stays.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders. It held that where no award was declared under the old 1894 Act only because a court had granted an interim stay at the landowners' own instance, the landowners cannot then claim the enhanced compensation available under the 2013 Act: that would let them profit from litigation they themselves initiated. Applying the principle of "restitution" (that no one should gain an unjust advantage because of court proceedings), the Court directed the Authorities to now declare the award and pay compensation strictly under the old 1894 Act, factoring in the intervening years. Landowners dissatisfied with the amount could still seek enhancement under the 1894 Act's own procedure.

Lesson Learnt

A person cannot use a court-obtained stay order as a shield to later claim a more favourable law was applicable simply because the stay delayed the government's action: the courts will not allow litigation delay to be converted into a financial windfall.