AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img










Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Vs. Sh. S. P. Singh & Ors [1996] INSC 1502 (26 November 1996)

K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

O R D ER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on March 22, 1996 in the First Appeal No. 129/95. This appeal and also the First Appeal No.128/95 before the High Court are commonly disposed of since the acquisition was common. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the `Act') was published on September 11, 1982 for acquiring 192.82 acres. The award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 3, 1984 in Award No.44 in respect of 137.52 acres of the land and another award dated September 21, 1986 in award No.44/1 in respect of 33 acres of land. On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his another award dated December 3, 1994 awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre.

On appeal, the High Court ha reduced the compensation to Rs.1,12,500/- per acre. It has also awarded separate compensation for the building, factory and machinery. Thus this appeal by special leave.

In this appeal, Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the judgment in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor v. National Fertilizer Corporation [(1996) 2 SCC 71] wherein it was held that the claimants are not entitled to solatium on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act, they are also not entitled to interest on the solatium. The learned counsel for the respondent, in fairness, has stated that as per the decree of the High Court, thee was no specific mention that the claimants are entitled to the above reliefs. It mentions only that the statutory benefits would be granted as per law. Under these circumstances, it is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys