LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO versus SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 21-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 557 
V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO 
A 
v. 
SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 
I.A. No. 2 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004) 
8 
APRIL 21, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.28A(3) - Appeal before c 
Supreme Court allowed and the application u/s.28A(3) held 
maintainable - Application for correction of typographical 
errors in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court - Held: 
In view. of the agreement between the counsel for the 
appellant and the respondents, direction issued that the errors 
D 
be corrected. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: l.A.N0.2 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004. 
From the Judgment & Order 19.07.2001 of the High Court 
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal 
No. 997 of 2001. 
SridharPotaruju, D. Julius Riamei, Faichang P. Gangmei 
for the Appellant. 
P. Parmeswaran, C.K. Sucharita, Nirada Das for the 
Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
557 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
ORDER 
This is an application for correction of typographical errors 
in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of judgment dated October 5, 2011 
vide which this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the 
8 
appellant-applicant, reversed the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and held that the 
application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable. 
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the 
C respondents who agree that the typographical errors in 
paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of judgment dated October 5, 2010 
may be corrected. In view of the above we direct that: 
i) The last 4 lines of paragraph 3 shall stand substituted 
D with the following: 
"The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed 
order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of 
the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre and also granted 
compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- towards subsoil 
E 
mineral rights apart from 30% solatium on enhanced 
compensation with 12% interest on additional market 
value from the date of notification to the date of award and 
9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession 
Β·for a period of one year and thereafter 15% per annum till 
F 
realisation of the enhanced compensation. The appeals 
fifed by the parties against the fresh determination of 
market value by the Reference Court are pending before 
the High Court." 
G 
ii) The last 7 lines of paragraph '/2. of judgment dated 
October 5, 2010 shall stand substituted.with the following: 
H 
"If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the 
appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of 
Rs.30,000/- per acre for the acquired land and 
. 
V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. SINGARENI COLLIERIES 55'9 
COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 
compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre towards 
A 
subsoil mineral rights with other benefits. If, on the other 
hand, the amount of compensation payable in terms of 
order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court is 
reduced by the High Court then the amount payable to the 
appellant will have to adjusted accordingly." 
B' 
iii) In paragraph 13, the number of Appeal Suit shall be 
substituted and shall always be deemed to have been 
substituted as 1634 instead of 1643. 
I.A. is allowed in the manner indicated above. 
c 
N.J. 
I.A. allowed.