P. K. Sreekantan – Appellant
Versus
P. Sree-kumaran Nair – Respondent
Judgement
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. :- Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and the State.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
An extent of 2.81.20 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.1780/1, 1780/4, 1780/9, 1781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the Kadakampally Village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of E.E.C. market at Anayara. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was published on 29.5.1992. The possession of the land was taken on 23.7.1992 and an award was passed on 13.7.1992 fixing a total compensation of Rs.45,08,111/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applications were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter for adjudication to the Reference Court.
4-5. The District Collector by his letter dated 18.7.1994 forwarded the relevant records in respect of the matter for determination under Section 18 of the Act. Along with the said letter, the names and addresses of the interested parties, who had filed the re
REFERRED TO : Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secry. of State
Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and Anr.
Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra
Kothamasu Kanakarathamma and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.