Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BALWAN SINGH & ORS. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.

Decided
9 March 2016
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 163 ยท 2016 INSC 250
Also cited as
  • (2016) 13 SCC 412 (9 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the date of dispossession to the date ofNotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'the Act'). That issue is no more res integra. Jn the case ofR.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. ODA & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 at paragraph 18, this Court has taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property.

p. 164, margin C

2

Noticing the above position, this Court in the case ofMadishetti Bala Ramu! (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2007)9 SCC 650, took the view that it may not be proper to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensatiol) to which the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during which they remained out of possession and hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directed that additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be paid for the period between the date of dis-possession and the date ofNotification under Section 4( I) of the Act.

p. 164, margin E

3

The said view was followed by this Court in the case ofTahera Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisiopal Officer/Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 613.

p. 164, margin G

4

Following the above view taken by this Court, these appeals are disposed of directiRg the respondents to award additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of I 5% per annum for the period between 1.7 .1984, the date when the appellants were dis-possessed till 2.9.1993, . the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. .

p. 165, margin A

5

Needless to say that this compensation will be on the basis of land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today.

p. 165, margin B

6

The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs. Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.

p. 165, margin B