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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1451

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Bikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in CWP Nos. 1558/91 and batch on December 13, 1991. The admitted facts are that the appellants had received notice on July 31, 1991 for payment of income-tax on the delayed interest amount recovered under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "LA Act"]. Calling that notice in question, they filed writ petitions. The High Court relying upon decisions of this Court dismissed the petitions with a finding as under :

"This now leads us to the consideration of the question whether interest paid on the amount, of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land is "income and, therefore, taxable under the Act. Matters which have to be considered for awarding compensation for compulsory acquisition of land are enumerated in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. While sub-section (2) of that section provides for payment of certain solatium for acquisition of compulsory nature, interest is not included as an item of compensation. Instead, interest is payable by force of section 34 of the Act, if compensation is not paid
















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