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

S. PRABHA SINGH DHILLON ETC. ETC. versus HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS.

Decided
6 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 791 · 1995 INSC 693
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.

Substituted allowed.

p. 792, margin A

This Court while disposing of the matter by order dated July 20, 1988 directed that depending upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989] 3 SCR 316, the payment of the interest and solatium would be determined. Since there the Constitution Bench had concluded that the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984 if the proceedings are pending before the Land Acquisition Officer or Civil Court between April 30, 1984, i.e., when the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was introduced on the floor of the· Parliament and the date when the Act came into force in September 24, 1984. Admittedly, the award came to be made on August 30, 1982 and the supplementary award with regard to the trees etc., came to be made on December 27, 1982.

p. 792, margin B

Under these circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to solatium under Section 23 (2) @ 30% per annum enhanced compensation. As regards the payment of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 and the additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of that Act, admittedly, the petitioners remained in possession of the acquired land. Under Sections 34, 28 and 23 (1-A) payment of interest and additional amount was intended to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner by deprivation of enjoyment of their property, after possession was taken. Since the possession was admittedly with the petitioners, they are not entitled to payment of interest under Sections 34, 28 or additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984.

p. 792, margin D

The Land Acquisition Officer will determine the amount 'of solatium payable to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and within six weeks thereafter the amount so determined would be paid to the petitioners. Before making the payment, the petitioners shall hand over the possession to the Land Acquisition Officer.

p. 792, margin F

The petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. R.P. Petitions disposed of.

p. 792, margin G