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 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER versus SIDDAPPA UJANAPPA MADAR

Decided
2 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 748 · 1995 INSC 683

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.

The Registry's report dated August 14, 1995 indicates that S.S. Typai, the sole respondent in SLP (C) No. 9906 of 1987 (present SLP),was dead as per the postal endorsement. We, therefore, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner-State to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole- respondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Dharwad, in his letter dated 17th October, 1995 had stated that said S.S. Tyapi is still alive and he is presently running a tea shop near bus depot at Gangavati. Under these circumstances, the vostal endorsement obviously is incorrect. Therefore, there is no need to bring the legal representatives of the respondent on recorcl.

pp. 748–749, margin G

Leave granted.

p. 749, margin B

The controversy in case is not longer res intergra. The applicability of the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984), is in question in this matter. These points have already been covered by two Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593. In view of these Constitution Bench judgments the appeal is to be allowed. Consequently, the benefits granted· pursuant to the Amendment Act stand set aside. The respondents are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum and also solatium @ 15% on the enhanced compensation.

p. 749, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs. G.N . Appeal allowed.

p. 749, margin D