- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 2 November 1995
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, B. L. Hansaria
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by the Amendment Act, 19M-Applicability of
The applicability of the provisions of Ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was in question in these appeals.
Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : The controversy in this appeal is no longer res integra, as the points are already covered by the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court.* Consequently, the benefits granted pursuant to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @6% per annum and also solatium @15% on the enhanced compensation. [749-C-D]
*Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and KS. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, followed.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
The Registry's report dated August 14, 1995 indicates that S.S. Typai, the sole respondent in SLP (C) No. 9906 of 1987 (present SLP),was dead as per the postal endorsement. We, therefore, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner-State to take steps to bring on record the legal repre-sentatives of the sole-respondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Dharwad, in his letter dated 17th October, 1995 had stated that said S.S. Tyapi is still alive and he is presently running a tea shop near bus depot at Gangavati. Under these circumstances, the vostal endorsement obviously is incorrect. Therefore, there is no need to bring the legal representatives of the respondent on recorcl.
Leave granted.
The controversy in case is not longer res intergra. The applicability of the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984), is in question in this matter. These points have already been covered by two Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593. In view of these Constitution Bench judgments the appeal is to be allowed. Consequently, the benefits granted· pursuant to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum and also solatium @ 15% on the enhanced compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Karnataka High Court in M.S.A. No. 79 of 1987.
Appearances
M. Vcerappa for the Appellant.
Kiran Suri for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.