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

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MARUTI LAXMAN

Decided
15 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 324 · 1996 INSC 523

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.

Though notice was served on the respondent, on one appears on behalf of him.

p. 324, margin E

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

p. 324, margin E

Notification nnder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 31, 1969. The Land Acquisition officer made his award on October 12, 1972 awarding compensation 0) Rs. 1,000 per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000 per acre by award and decree dated February 18, 1977. The High Court while dismissing the State appeal on July 16, 1986 has awarded the enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Thus this appeal by special leave.

p. 324, margin F

This appeal is only in respect of awarding of enhanced benefits under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Act. In view of the settled legal position that the award of the civil Court was made long before the date of the· introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the claimant is not entitled to the enhanced benefits. That apart, it is also settled legal position that the High Court, while dismissing the appellant's appeal, had no jurisdiction to award the additional benefits since the claimants did not file any appeal for further enhancement. Therefore, in the absence of any additional compensation being awarded, the High Court has no jurisdiction to award the benefits under the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

pp. 324–325, margin G

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court awarding solatium, interest and additional amount under Section 23(2), 28 and 23 (1-A) stands set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 325, margin B