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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1011

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


ORDER

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Substitution allowed.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1994 made in Civil Revision Nos. 2144-45 of 1994 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The admitted position is that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ) was published on June 10, 1977 acquiring a large track of land for extension of Amritsar Cantonment at village Kala Ghanpur. The Collector made his award under Section 11 on August 28, 1978. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar by his award and decree dated December 24, 1981 enhanced the compensation which was confirmed by the single Judge and on appeal by the Division Bench. The special leave petitions filed in this Court were dismissed confirming the enhanced compensation.

3. On July 28, 1987 applications under Sections 151 and 152, CPC were filed in the High Court for award of enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed the applications. When execution appl





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