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

2003 Supreme(AP) 632

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, C.V.RAMULU
Radhakrishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyd. – Respondent


C. V. RAMULU, J.

( 1 ) C. M. P. No. 3943 of 2003 is filed to condone the delay of 978 days in filing the Review C. M. P. (SR) no. 10607 of 2003 to review the judgment and Decree dated 31-3-2000 passed by this Court in A. S. No. 1002 of 1997 only to the extent of holding "however, it is made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium .

( 2 ) BEFORE going to merits of the case, it is necessary to note a brief history of the case.

( 3 ) A. S. No. 1002 of 1997 was disposed of on 31-3-2000 fixing the market value for the acquired lands at Rs. 40/- per square yard and awarding statutory benefits as provided under the Act 68 of 1984. However, it was made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants-review petitioners have filed S. L. P. No. 5922-5923 (C) of 2002 before the Supreme Court. The same was dismissed on 6-9-2002 and the Court made the following order: "there is enormous delay and the same stands unexplained. Hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

( 4 ) HAVING failed before the Supreme court, they ventured to file this rev
















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