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

Union of India & Anr. vs Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 409Decided 1 May 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The respondents' land was requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, via a notice issued in March 1964 and published in the State Gazette in April 1964, upon which the property vested with the government. Compensation for the acquisition was not paid to the landowner for many years: a delay the Court itself described as "glaring." The respondent eventually secured a favourable ruling from the High Court granting solatium (additional compensation) and interest for the delay, and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against that order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a delay of about 12 years in offering compensation was arbitrary and violated Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution, and could even have entitled the landowner to challenge the acquisition itself as violating his property rights under Article 300A. The Court found the High Court had rightly granted solatium and interest given the long delay, and noted that the compensation had already been paid seven years prior to this appeal being heard. Expressing surprise that the government had pursued this appeal at all, the Court dismissed it as devoid of merit, though it refrained from imposing costs given the compensation had already been settled.

Lesson Learnt

The government cannot indefinitely delay paying compensation after acquiring or requisitioning private property: prolonged delay is treated as arbitrary state action, entitling the citizen to solatium and interest, and possibly even a challenge to the acquisition itself.

Union of India & Anr. vs Dr. Asket Singh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware