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, SRIRANGAPATNAM versus NAGEGOWOA

Decided
23 August 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. 5 S.C.R. 191 · 1996 INSC 936
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.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 191, margin F

· Notification under Section 4(1) of the .Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 26, 1985 acquiring land admeasuring 5 acres . 21 gunthas for the purpose of formation of Hemavathi left bank canal. ;rhe Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on February 23, 1988 @ Rs. 4,800 per acre: On ref~rence, the civil Judge relying upon Ex. P-3 awarded compensation @ Rs. 20,000 per acre. He categorically rejected the contention of the claimant that he was growing sugarcane, hybrid jowar and mulberry getting a full yield of Rs. 25,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court by impugned judgment· dated August 18, 1994 in FA No. 1311/94 confirmed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 191–192, margin G

Having considered the facts and circumstances in this case, we think . that reasonable compensation would be Rs. 10,000 per acre. The judgment referring to Ex. A-3 has been placed before us and it indicates that it related to land with coconut trees. Even the amount awarded by the civil ·judge in that case is now subject matter in the appeal before the District Judge filed under Section 54 of the Act. Under these circumstances, Ex. A-3 is absolutely irrelevant for determination of the compensation. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10,000 per acre with solatium at 30% under Section 23(2), interest under Section 28 at 9% for one year from the taking of possession and at 15% thereafter on enhanced compensation till date of deposit into court and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) at 13% per annum from the date of issue of Section 4(1) notification till date of the award.

p. 192, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 192, margin D