VoxJuris
Home › 1996 › Supreme Court of India

Seshan and Ors. v. The Special Tehsildar and Land Acouisition Officer, Sipcot, Pudukkottaj

Appeal(s) allowed
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
30 January 1996
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G. B. Pattanaik
Result
Appeal allowed.

Headnote

La11d Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Sections 23(2), 34-Award made after the introduction cf Ame11dment Act 68 of 1984~Hence claimants entitled to i11£eresl @ 9% p.a. from the dale of taking possessio11 till date of awan}-A/so elllirled lo interest @I 5% p.a. on enhanced con1pensation after expily of one yea1; and on the enhanced con1pensation-Clain1ants are also entitled to Solatiunt @ 3Do/o on the additional amo1111£.

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Judgment

r Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17th October, 1981. The possession of the land was taken in January 1982. The land Acquisition Officer in his award dated July 31, 1982 determined compensation @ Rs. 2,000 per acre. On reference, the civil Court by award and decree dated November 7, 1983 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court by judg-ment and decree dated August, 9, 1989 enhanced the compensation to ·-...f Rs.6,000 per acre and awarded interest under the unamended Act as per

the State amendment, thus this appeal by special leave.

In view of the fact that the Land Acquisition officer has made the award on July 31, 1982, i.e., after the introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 on the floor of the Parliament, the claimants arc entitled to interest under Section 34@ 9% per annum from the date of taking posses-sion till date of payment or deposit in the Court. They are entitled to interest @ 15% on compensation not paid or deposited after the expiry of one year. Equally so on the enhanced compensation from the respective dates till the date of deposit in the Court. Equally, solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) is required to be deposited on the market value.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

Case details

Arising from

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2938 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.89 of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 572 of 1985.

Appearances

V. Balachandran for the Appellants.

A. Mariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Respondent.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.