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

THE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA versus THE LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Decided
31 March 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 113 · 1995 INSC 239
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Mr. Maheshwari, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. Leave granted.

p. 114, margin A

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in CA No.174 and 602- 605/82 dated October 29,1987, wherein the counsel appearing for the appellant had conceded in those appeals that "the respondents have agreed that the provisions of the amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available." Based thereon, it is contended by Sri Gopal Subramaniam that it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68/1984. Section 23(1-A) provides that in addition to the compensation the owner is entitled to the payment of 12% per annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of the notification under Section 4( 1) till date of passing award by the Collector or taking possession, whichever is earlier. This is independent of the escalation of the solatium and interest provided under sub-s (2) of Section 23, and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, respectively. Therefore, what was meant by this Court in the above quoted direction is escalation but not independent of the claims available under section 23(1-A) since by then that question was pending adjudication before this Court.

p. 114, margin B

Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the benefits under section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act. It should accordingly be deleted from the award. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall pay the balance amount as directed by this Court in the earlier order within a period of one month from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal Allowed.

p. 114, margin F