https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287587 The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the High Court's direction to the State Government to pay compensation to the Respondents based on an inter-departmental communication. It noted that the High Court overlooked crucial documents and facts, causing prejudice to the State. The Court emphasized that the Respondent was an unauthorized occupant, as established through various judicial orders. The Supreme Court found the District Magistrate's communication recommending compensation improper, as the State Government had rejected it. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs imposed. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:30:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287587 The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the High Court's direction to the State Government to pay compensation to the Respondents based on an inter-departmental communication. It noted that the High Court overlooked crucial documents and facts, causing prejudice to the State. The Court emphasized that the Respondent was an unauthorized occupant, as established through various judicial orders. The Supreme Court found the District Magistrate's communication recommending compensation improper, as the State Government had rejected it. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs imposed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287587