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

Shripal vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd.

Not available · 2024 INSC 386Decided 7 May 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellants' irrigated agricultural lands were acquired in 2007 for construction of canals under the Hippargi Barrage project. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs.1,31,263 per acre, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.3,00,000 per acre. On further appeal, the appellants argued that landowners in a similar, related acquisition (2004-2005 notification, for the same kind of irrigated land) had been awarded Rs.3,69,000 per acre and this had been upheld even by the Supreme Court, while another batch of owners under a 2009 notification for the same project had received Rs.5,00,000 per acre.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that the respondent-beneficiary itself had agreed to the Rs.3,69,000 per acre rate (with 5% annual escalation) for the 2004-2005 notification, while the 2009 notification lands had been valued even higher at Rs.5,00,000 per acre. Since the appellants' land was acquired in 2007, in between these two reference points, the Court held that a fair and proportionate market value would be Rs.4,50,000 per acre, modifying the High Court's 2018 order accordingly, along with all statutory benefits, interest and costs. However, it upheld the High Court's separate finding denying interest for the period of delay in filing cross-objections. The Court expressly clarified that this order was passed on the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a binding precedent for other land acquisition matters.

Lesson Learnt

When fixing compensation for compulsorily acquired land, courts often use a straightforward interpolation between established, comparable valuations for similar land acquired shortly before and after the disputed acquisition date, but such fact-specific compensation orders are typically not meant to set a general precedent for other cases.

Shripal vs Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware