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

ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RATAK AND ANR. versus THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

Decided
15 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 747 · 1996 INSC 268
Also cited as
  • AIR 1996 SC 1350 (2 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.

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.

Leave granted. We, have heard the counsel on both sides.

p. 747, margin E

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1of1894 was published in 1981 and the award under Section 11 was made on May 9, 1984 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 110 per sq. yd. On reference under Section 18 the learned single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 300 per sq. yd. by award and decree dated February 19, 1992 but disallowed interest in view of the agreement between the parties. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant has come forward with this appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court dated July 14, 1994 in Appeal No. 114/92.

p. 747, margin F

The only question is whether the appellants are entitled to the interest as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Admittedly, the appellants had entered into an agreement and the relevant part thereof reads as under :

pp. 747–748, margin G

"That the Corporation shall pay an amount of Rs. 98,480 (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Eighty only) being 2/3rd of compensation to be calculated at the interim rates of Rs. 40 for the said property more particularly described in the First Schedule hereunder written on the execution of this agreement and the balance amount of the compensation as may be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be paid to the owners with interest thereon at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of

p. 748, margin A

possession."

p. 748, margin C

A reading thereof clearly indicates that they were agreeable for payment of a sum of Rs. 98,480 only being 2/3rd of the compensation to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yd. more particularly described in the First Schedule on execution of the agreement. For the balance amount they requested the authorities to award compensation under the Act. But they contracted for payment of interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of possession.

p. 748, margin C

Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act reads as under :

p. 748, margin D

"(2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the Form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry,

p. 748, margin E

make an award according to the terms of such agreement."

p. 748, margin F

Therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to award interest as per the contract entered into by the authorities. Though the Amendment Act has come into force giving benefit of .enhanced rate of interest, the appellants are not entitled to the enhanced interest by virtue of their contract.

p. 748, margin F

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 748, margin G