LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

STATE OF KARNATAKA versus MALLINATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 30-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
MALL!NATH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 30, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act 68 of 1984: 
C 
S.23( IA)-Additional benefits-Held, not applicable in respect of 
award made prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984. 
On the question of applicability of S.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894, partly allowing the appeal filed by the State, this Court 
D 
HELD : Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to 
the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, the claimants are not entitled to the 
payment of additional amount under S.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition, 
1894. (557-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 9900-
E 9904 of 1995. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High 
Court in M.F.A. Nos. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986. 
M. Veerappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
It is stated in the affidavit filled by Matru Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri 
Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on instructions from 
the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Somawa Patil, the second respon-
G dent herein had left behind her son Mallinath who is respondent No. 1 in 
SLP (C) No. 14220/86 as her legal representative and that since Mallinath 
is already on record, there is no need to bring him on record separately as 
legal representative. He is transposed as legal representative. Since he is 
already representing the estate of his deceased mother Somavva Patil, it is 
H accordingly recorded. 
556 
. I 
" 
STATE v. MALLINAIB 
557 
i.-eave granted. 
The controversy hinges upon the applicability of section 23(1-A) of 
the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') as amended by Act 68 of 
1984. Since the award of the Collector wa> made much prior to the 
Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of addition-
A 
al amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. 
B 
The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the orders of the 
High Court and the appellate Court are set aside to that extent. In other 
respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs. 
R.P . 
Appeal allowed.