- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 15 January 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal allowed
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Compensation-Held, claimants not entitled to the benefit of the provi-sions qf the Act as amended by Act 68 qf 1984--lnstead they are entitled to solatium at 15% aiul interest at 6% 011 the enhanced compensation.from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
In view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks "not available in the house", "House locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents.
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in this case is covered by an order of this Court dated August 2, 1995 made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9048 of 1988. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and following the judgment passed by this Court, we held that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Instead, they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances without costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2414 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order Dated 13.11.87 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous No. 45 of 1974.
Appearances
Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant.
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.