A
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
v.
SIDDAPPA UJANAPPA IVIADAR
NOVEMBER 2, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by the Amendment Act,
C 19M-Applicability of
D
E
F
The applicability of the provisions of Ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was in question in these appeals.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : The controversy in this appeal is no longer res integra, as the
points are already covered by the Constitution Bench decisions of this
Court.* Consequently, the benefits granted pursuant to the Amendment Act
stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @6% per annum
and also solatium @15% on the enhanced compensation. [749-C-D]
*Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and KS.
Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10522 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Karnataka High
Court in M.S.A. No. 79 of 1987.
M. Vcerappa for the Appellant.
G
Kiran Suri for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The Registry's report dated August 14, 1995 indicates that S.S. Typai,
the sole respondent in SLP (C) No. 9906 of 1987 (present SLP),was dead
H as per the postal endorsement. We, therefore, directed the learned counsel
748
•·
....
SPL. LANDACQN. OFFICER v. S.U. MADAR
74Y
for the petitioner-State to take steps to bring on record the legal repre-
A
sentatives of the sole- respondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
National Highways, Dharwad, in his letter dated 17th October, 1995 had
stated that said S.S. Tyapi is still alive and he is presently running a tea
shop near bus depot at Gangavati. Under these circumstances, the vostal
endorsement obviously is incorrect. Therefore, there is no need to bring B
the legal representatives of the respondent on recorcl.
Leave granted.
The controversy in case is not longer res intergra. The applicability of
the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition C
Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68
of 1984), is in question in this matter. These points have already been
covered by two Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Union of
India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and K.S. Paripooman v. State of
Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593. In view of these Constitution Bench judgments
the appeal is to be allowed. Consequently, the benefits granted· pursuant D
to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to
interest @ 6% per annum and also solatium @ 15% on the enhanced
compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without
E
costs.
G.N .
Appeal allowed.
Lex