THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusHLRALAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 66
- Decided
- 15 January 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984 does not apply to the respondents; they are entitled only to a solatium of 15 % and interest at 6 % on the enhanced compensation from possession to deposit.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired land belonging to Hiralal and others and the respondents claimed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, which purported to provide enhanced compensation and solatium. The High Court had allowed their claim, but the State appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1984 amendment applied to the acquisition and what quantum of solatium and interest was payable. It held that the amendment did not benefit the respondents; they were only entitled to a solatium of 15 % and interest at 6 % on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession until deposit. The Court also deemed the notices served as valid despite postal remarks and allowed the appeal, rejecting the respondents’ claim to the amendment’s benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984 applies to the compensation claim of the respondents.
- What is the appropriate rate of solatium and interest payable on the enhanced compensation.
- Whether the notices served to the respondents were valid despite postal remarks.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
\
A THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
HlRALAL AND ORS.
JANUARY 15, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
).
Compensation-Held, claimants not entitled to the benefit of the provi-
sions qf the Act as amended by Act 68 qf 1984--lnstead they are entitled to
C solatium at 15% aiul interest at 6% 011 the enhanced compensation.from the
date of taking possession till date of deposit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2414 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order Dated 13.11.87 of the Madhya Pradesh
.D High Court in Civil Miscellaneous No. 45 of 1974.
Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant.
...
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
In view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents
E 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 notices have been served on the respondents.
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in this case is covered by an order of this Court '
F dated August 2, 1995 made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9048
of 1988. We have heard the counsel for 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
G at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till
date of deposit.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances without
costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed
H
480
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.