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 STATE OF PUNJAB versus DES RAJ

Decided
18 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. 562 · 1996 INSC 546
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 562, margin F

Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on March 11, 1978 acquiring 55 acres 5 kanals 1 maria for construction of new Mandi at J alalabad. The Collector in his award dated March 13, 1978 determined the compensation at Rs. 4500 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated March 19, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000 per acre and Rs. 20,000 per acre on the basis of belting. The learned single Judge by his judgment and decree dated December 2, 1988 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 43,000 and Rs. 34,000 per acre on belting basis, but applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the applicability of Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the reference Court determined the compensation on March 19, 1982, i.e .. prior to the introduction of the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount under section 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) respectively of the Act.

pp. 562–563, margin F

It is brought to our notice that dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation of Rs. 43,000 per acre, the claimant has filed Letters Patent Appeal and that it is pending. If that is so, we need not go into the question whether determination of the compensation by the learned single Judge at Rs 43,000 per acre is justified or not. The matter is left open. The Division Bench would be free to decide the matter according to law. But as regards the applicability of the amended provisions, in view of the above facts, the lear!led single Judge was clearly in error in extending the additional · benefits under the amended provisions of the Act.

p. 563, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order awarding 30% solatium, 9% interest from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter 15% interest and also the additional amount of 12% per annum under section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimant is entitled to 15% solatium under section 23(2) and 6% interest under Section 28 as unamended, on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit into Court. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 563, margin D