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

1996 Supreme(SC) 2004

K.RAMASWAMY, G.T.NANAVATI
Adavala Sathaiah – Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) – Respondent


ORDER

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 to 14 and 18 have left their respective places without any instructions as per endorsement made by the Postal authorities. Under these circumstances, notice on them is not necessary. Regarding respondent Nos. 4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17 and 19 to 20, it is stated that neither unserved envelops nor A.D. Cards have been received back by the Registry. Under these circumstances, they must be deemed to have been served. Even though the petitioners succeed, these respondents cannot get the same benefit because they did not challenge the award. They being pro forma respondents, notice on them is not necessary.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the A.P. High Court, made on March 3, 1992 in the Appeal No. 2660/85. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 8, 1979, acquiring 71 acres 12 cents of land for the public purpose, namely, erection of National Thermal Power Corporation. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.4,000/- and Rs.4,500/- per acre for Group I and Group II of the lands. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enh




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