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 HARYANA versus SMT. KAMLA AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 106 · 1996 INSC 588

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. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

p. 106, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No. 3319 of 1992 dated January 21, 1993,

p. 106, margin G

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisiiion Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published on Nove111ber 4, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector in his a\vard n1ade under Section 11 of the Act on October 28, 1981 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondents filed application under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District .Judge by his award and decree dated April 6, 1.985 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18 per square yard. The respondents levied execution regarding recovery of the amount on October 12, 1992. The District .Judge by his order dated .July, 18, 1992 awarded additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and also enhanced the interest under Section 28 o[ the Act at the rate of 9 per cent per annwn for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of realisation. The appellant carried the matter in revision but the High Court dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 106–107, margin G

It has been well-settled legal position that the claimant is not entitled to payment of additional amount of compensation under section 23(1-A) when the award proceedings have been concluded long prior to the introduction o[ the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the executing Court is devoid of jurisdiction and power to award additional amount of compensation or to enhance the in~erest in execution. The Court gets po\ver and jurisdiction on reference \Vhen it enhances compensation or on appeal under Section 54 enhances the compensation to a\var<l additional amount of compensation under Section 23(1-A) or solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) or interest under Section 28 under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The executing Court, therefore, travelled beyond its jurisdiction to award additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and also interest under Section 28 of the Act. The High Court \Vas, therefore, in clear error in dismissing the civil revision. The amended decree of the execution Court stands set ·aside.

p. 107, margin C

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

p. 107, margin F