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

TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus SH. S.P. SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
26 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 211 · 1996 INSC 1389

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. 211, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on March 22, 1996 in the First Appeal No. 129/95. This appeal and also the First Appeal No. 123/95 before the High Court are commonly disposed of since the acquisition was common. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on September 11, 1982 for acquiring 192.82 acres. The award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 3, 1984 in Award No. 44 in respect of 137.52 acres of the land and another award dated September 21, 1986 in award No. 44/1 in respect of 33 acres of land. On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his another award dated December 3, 1994 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court has reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,12,500 per acre. it has also awarded separate compensation for the building, factory and machinery. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 211–212, margin G

In this appeal, Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the judgment in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor v. National Fertilizer Corporation, [1996] 2 SCC 71 wherein it was held that the claimants are not entitled to solatium on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act, they are also not entitled to interest on solatium. The learned counsel for the respondent, in fairness, has stated that as per the decree of the High Court, there was no specific mention that the claimants are entitled to the above reliefs. It mentions only that the statutory benefits would be granted as per law. Under these circumstances, it is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and on additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

p. 212, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs. T.N.A Appeal allowed.

p. 212, margin E