SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 187

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
Yadavrao P. Pathade – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The only question is : whether the appellants are entitled to payment of interest on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ). The additional amount was awarded by the reference Court on December 15, 1979 enhancing the compensation. The High Court by its judgment dated 4.12.1995 has further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 42,056-15. The appellants claimed interest on solatium of Rs. 6308-42 which was disallowed by the High Court. The interest on solatium was calculated from 1.1.1967 to 31.12.1971. The appellants placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala1, contending that interest on solatium is a part of the component under Section 23(1) of the Act and that, therefore, they are entitled to payment of the interest. The High Court, therefore, was not right in refusing interest on solatium. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Act.

3. Section 28 gives power to the Court to award interest when the Court enhances the compensation in excess of amount awarded by the Collector at the rate specified therein,






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top