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

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. versus MALLANAGOUDA RAYANAGOUDA PATIL AND ORS.

Decided
3 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 494 · 1995 INSC 437

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

Leave granted.

p. 494, margin H

The High Court of Karnataka in the impugned order reversed the award and decree of the Reference Court and modified the same to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to compensation @Rs. 9,160 per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,680 per acre for dry land, as against the Reference Court's award of sum of Rs. 16,950 and Rs. 9,975 respectively, when the matter had come up for admission, since a batch of the matters was then pending, notice wa:s ordered in these matters also and the same was directed to be tagged with them. Since the batch has been disposed of by order dated January 27, 1995 in C.A. arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11963-70/96, this Court while affirming the compensation awarded by the High Court modified the judgment and decree to the extent of awarding benefits of enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendm~nt Act 68 of 1984. The Court instead granted solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till dated of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. In these cases, since the award of the Reference Court itself is of October 23, 1982, i.e., after the Amendment Act was introduced, the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest as granted by the High Court.

p. 495, margin A

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

p. 495, margin D