1. In view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks "not available in the house", "House locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must be deemed that the notice s have been served on the respondents.
2. Leave granted. The controversy raised in this case is covered by an order of this Court dated August 2, 1995 made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.9048 of 1988. We have heard the counsel f or the appellant and following the judgment passed by this Court, we held that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Instead, they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Hiralal And Others
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Hiralal And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
No | 15-01-1996
Advocate List
- For
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
- HON'BLE JUSTICE G. B. PATTANAIK
Eq Citations
- (1996) 7 SCC 523
- [1996] 1 SCR 480
- 1996 1 AD (SC) 874
- JT 1996 (1) SC 669
- LQ/SC/1996/108
Head Note
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 11-A and 31 — Entitlement to benefit of provisions of 1984 Act — Held, respondents not entitled to benefit of provisions of 1894 Act, as amended by 1984 Act — Instead, they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on enhanced compensation from date of taking possession till date of deposit
