1995 Supreme(SC) 63

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND DR A.S. ANAND, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
B.V. SAROJA AND ANOTHER
Review Petition No. 41 of 1993 in Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 15-9-1989 of the Karnataka High Court in MFA No. 2814 of 1985}
Decided on 13-1-1995
Advocates appeared:
A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate (Ms B. Sunita Rao, Ms Sushma Suri and Ms Anil Katiyar, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioner/Appellant;
P. Mahale, Advocate, for the Respondents.

Entitlement to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act is subject to the coverage of previous judgments.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Entitlement to Additional Amount - The court held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the point raised was covered by a previous judgment. Consequently, the claimants were not entitled to the benefit, and the review petition was ordered. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of denying the additional amount, and the awards of the courts below were accordingly modified.

Fact of the Case:

The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 30-3-1972. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 15-9-1976, and possession was taken on 15-10-1976. The respondents claimed entitlement to the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as the point raised was covered by a previous judgment. Consequently, the claimants were not entitled to the benefit, and the review petition was ordered. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of denying the additional amount, and the awards of the courts below were accordingly modified.

Issues: Entitlement to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The point raised was covered by a previous judgment, and in view of these facts, the respondents were not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Final Decision: The respondents were not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The review petition was ordered, and the appeal was allowed only to the extent of denying the additional amount. The awards of the courts below were accordingly modified.