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

Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh vs. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 844Decided 6 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The appellant's agricultural land was acquired in 2003 for an irrigation project in Maharashtra. He accepted the initial compensation under protest and sought enhancement, eventually being awarded extra compensation for fruit-bearing "awala" trees and a borewell on his land through a review of the reference court's order. The High Court later held that this additional compensation for the trees and borewell had been wrongly granted in review proceedings based on inadmissible evidence, and reversed it, prompting the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the reference court had improperly relied on an unproven, inadmissible report (a Joint Measurement Report) when granting compensation for the trees and borewell during review: a review petition cannot be used to reargue a case on new, unproven evidence as if it were a fresh appeal. The Court also upheld the High Court's approach to calculating land value, rejecting the appellant's demand for a compounded (cumulative) 10% annual increase over an earlier exemplar sale deed, since an earlier related judgment on the same acquisition had already fixed a simple (non-cumulative) increase. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is a limited remedy meant to correct an apparent error in a judgment. It is not a second chance to introduce fresh, unproven evidence or reargue the merits of a case as if in a full appeal.

Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh vs. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware