B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THESE matters emanate from the common order of the learned Sub Judge, nizamabad dated 7-2-1992 in LA Nos. 602/91 and batch in O. P. No. 1154/77 and batch. The exuding similar questions in controversies are heard on merits and disposed of here in with this common judgment as proposed by both the parties.

( 2 ) THESE are the uncontroverted facts:

( 3 ) THE respondents are the claimants in the batch of cases. Their lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act , and awards were passed by the Court on 31-3-1979. On their review petitions, modified awards were passed on 31-12-1983. They claimed benefits under sections 23 (1 -A) and 30 of the Amended Act 68/84, hereinafter referred to as the Amended act which came into force on 24-9-1984, viz. , enhanced solatium, interest and 12% additional compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer opposed it. The learned Sub Judge allowed the applications and granted the benefits as claimed.

( 4 ) MS. Malathi, the learned Assistant government Pleader has contended that the impugned order is against the settled law by the supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir singh (1) AIR 1989

Click Here to Read the rest of this document