THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. SIDDAPPA UJANAPPA IVIADAR
Tools
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- (year only)
- Bench
- K. RAMASWAMY and B.L. HANSARIA
- Citation
- [1995] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 748
Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
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] E *Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, and KS. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, followed.
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
NOVEMBER 2, 1995
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by the Amendment Act, C 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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10522 of 1995. F From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Karnataka High Court in M.S.A. No. 79 of 1987.
M. Vcerappa for the Appellant.
G Kiran Suri for the Respondent.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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 H as per the postal endorsement. We, therefore, directed the learned counsel 748 •·
SPL. LANDACQN. OFFICER v. S.U. MADAR 74Y
for the petitioner-State to take steps to bring on record the legal repre- A 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 B the legal representatives of the respondent on recorcl.
Leave granted.
Footnotes
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs. E G.N . Appeal allowed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0