1. Delay condoned
2. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides
3. The only question is : whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest under the provisions of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The controversy is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla had considered the entire controversy and had held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to place reliance upon a two-Judge Bench decision in Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India. In view of the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla case the ratio of Rao Narain Singh case is no longer good in law
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
Union Of India And Others v. Swaran Singh And Others
Union Of India And Others v. Swaran Singh And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. Of 1996 | 21-03-1996
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE G. T. NANAVATI
- HON'BLE JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
Eq Citations
- (1998) 8 SCC 593
- LQ/SC/1996/651
Head Note
Land Acquisition and Requisition Act, 1952 — S. 31-A — Solatium and interest — Entitlement to — Ratio of Rao Narain Singh, (1971) 1 SCC 423, held, no longer good in law — Respondents not entitled to payment of solatium and interest — Hence, appeals allowed
