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

UNION OF INDIA versus KISHAN CHAND AND ORS.

Decided
11 October 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. 7 S.C.R. 619 · 1996 INSC 1195

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. 619, margin E

Notice on respondents 2, 3 and 4 to 20 has been returned with postal remarks "Address Incomplete". Notice on respondent No.22 has been served. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on them. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Notice was limited only to the issue of applicability of the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

p. 619, margin F

Notification under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on October 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award had granted compensation @ Rs.2,500 per bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated December 19, 1973 enhanced the compensation @ Rs.5,000 per bigha. The High Court on appeal while enhancing the compensation to Rs.12000 per bigha has given the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 by enhancing the solatium and interest and additional amount. In view of the fact that the reference Court had decided the matter in December 1973 the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest and additional benefit under Sections 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A].

pp. 619–620, margin G

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Instead, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation and solatium at 15%. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 620, margin B