UNION OF INDIA vs BRAHM PRAKASH . — SLP(C) No. 7745/2007

Case under Section I-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010055982007

Filing Date

22-Feb-2007

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 7745/2007

Diary Number

5598/2007

Order Date

14-May-2010

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section I-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA

    Adv. DEVENDRA SINGH MEHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BRAHM PRAKASH .

    Adv. SAHARYA & CO.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 26-Apr-2010
  4. 18-Mar-2010
  5. 17-Feb-2010
  6. 14-Jan-2010
  7. 04-Dec-2009
  8. 30-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 17-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 08-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 20-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 17-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 23-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 21-Jan-2009
  15. 21-Jan-2009
  16. 21-Jan-2009
  17. 15-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 13-Jan-2009
  19. 03-Dec-2008
  20. 31-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 11-Jul-2008
  22. 11-Jul-2008
  23. 16-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 01-Oct-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 20-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 22-Feb-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 7745/2007

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SLP(C) No. 007745/2007 The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to enhance land compensation. The High Court had increased market value of agricultural land in Village Bakarwala (acquired in 1993 for a Water Treatment Plant) from Rs. 1,08,000 to Rs. 1,32,000 per bigha, relying on sale transactions from nearby Village Mundaka. The Supreme Court upheld this determination, finding the High Court had rightly applied the principle that comparable sale deeds are the best evidence for determining fair market value, and declined to interfere with the marginal increase. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case