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

1996 Supreme(SC) 774

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated April 5, 1990 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in LPA No. 444/90. The land of the respondents, along with others, admeasuring 50.55 acres situated in village Behar Tehsil, Pathankot was requisitioned and subsequently acquired for defence purpose under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 [for short, the Act ] The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation at Rs.201/- per canal. When an application was made by the respondents under Section 8 of the Act, the arbitrator in his award dated December 6, 1986 determined the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per canal. He also awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and @ 15% thereafter till date of deposit. When challenged, the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The only question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest awarded by the



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