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 vs Ramchandra & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 11 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 5006-5010 of 2022
Hemant Gupta · Vikram Nath

Background

Sagar Maize Products Ltd. ("the Company") had bought land in Village Maksi, Madhya Pradesh, for setting up a factory. In 1990, part of that land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Dewas-Maksi railway line. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed compensation at about Rs. 5 per square foot. On reference, the Reference Court raised this to Rs. 40 per square foot and, unusually, awarded compensation for the Company's entire land holding (not just the portion actually acquired), reasoning that the rest had become unusable for the intended factory because of the railway line passing through it. The High Court kept the "entire land" approach but reduced the rate to Rs. 19 per square foot. Both the Union (seeking a lower rate and no compensation for unacquired land) and the Company (seeking Rs. 40/sq ft) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court's Rs. 40 rate was based on flawed evidence: a witness's testimony about the sale price of developed residential/commercial plots, which cannot be used to value undeveloped agricultural land (following Lal Chand v. Union of India). It also held that only land actually needed as a railway "restricted zone" (30 meters from the centre of the track on either side) could fairly be treated as unusable, not the Company's entire holding: the balance of the land, especially the larger western portion abutting a public road, remained usable and was wrongly compensated. For the eastern-side land cut off by the railway (severance), the Court applied Sections 23 and 49 of the Land Acquisition Act and awarded 50% of the acquisition rate (Rs. 9.5 per square foot) as severance compensation, without statutory solatium/interest benefits which apply only to market value, not severance damages. The Union's appeals were substantially allowed and the Company's appeal for a higher rate was dismissed, while compensation already fixed for pillars/construction damage was left undisturbed.

Lesson Learnt

Land acquisition compensation must be tied to real, comparable sale evidence of similar undeveloped land, prices of fully developed residential or commercial plots cannot be used as a yardstick, and "severance" compensation for land rendered less usable (but not itself acquired) is a separate, lower category of compensation than the market value paid for land actually taken.

Union of India vs Ramchandra & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware