State of Karnataka Vs. Mallinath & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.9900-9904 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14220-24 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14220-24 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986)
Petitioner: State of Karnataka
Respondent: Mallinath & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.9900-9904 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14220-24 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14220-24 of 1986)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 30, 1995
Appearances:
Mr.M. Veerappa and Mr. K.H. Nibin Singh, Advocates for the Appellant.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Section 23(1-A) (as amended by Act68 of 1984) -Applicability of – Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to the Amendment Act, the claimants held not entitled to the payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A).
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. It is stated in the affidavit filed by Matru Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Somavva Patil, the second respondent herein had left behind her son Mallinath who is respondent No.1 in SLP (C) No.14220/86 as her legal representative and that since Mallinath is already on record, there is no need to bring him on record separately as legal representative. He is transposed as legal representative. Since he is already representing the estate of his deceased mother Somavva Patil, it is accordingly recorded.
2. Leave granted.
3. The controversy hinges upon the applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
4. The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the orders of the High Court and the appellate court are set aside to that extent. In other respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs.
1. It is stated in the affidavit filed by Matru Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Somavva Patil, the second respondent herein had left behind her son Mallinath who is respondent No.1 in SLP (C) No.14220/86 as her legal representative and that since Mallinath is already on record, there is no need to bring him on record separately as legal representative. He is transposed as legal representative. Since he is already representing the estate of his deceased mother Somavva Patil, it is accordingly recorded.
2. Leave granted.
3. The controversy hinges upon the applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
4. The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the orders of the High Court and the appellate court are set aside to that extent. In other respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs.
