1996 JTR(SC) 100
1996 27 AllLR 313 ; 1996 1 CCC(SC) 18601 ; 1996 1 CurCC(SC) 186 ; 1997 ISJ(Banking) 620 ; 1996 1 JT 669 ; 1996 1 Scale 35 ; 1996 1 Scale(SP) 35 ; 1996 7 SCC 523 ; 1996 1 SCR 480 ; 1996 1 Supreme 753
1996(1) Supreme 753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Hiralal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2414 of 1996
Decided on 15-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Respondents : Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Instead they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.114
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.27
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23(2), S.68
SUPREME COURT RULES : O.25 R.11
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Service of notice deemed effective where postal remarks indicate non-availability, locked house, or closed shop; entitlement to solatium and interest instead of land acquisition benefits.
Facts of the case:
Notices were served on respondents but returned by postal service with remarks such as not available, house locked, and shop closed.
Findings of Court:
Notices are considered validly served; respondents are not entitled to Land Acquisition Act benefits; entitled only to solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.
Issues:
Whether respondents are entitled to land acquisition compensation or only solatium with interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where notice is returned indicating non-receipt due to locked premises or closure, service is deemed effective, denying enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Result:
Appeal allowed without costs; respondents receive solatium and interest instead.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Service of notice deemed effective where postal remarks indicate non-availability, locked house, or closed shop; entitlement to solatium and interest instead of land acquisition benefits.
Facts of the case:
Notices were served on respondents but returned by postal service with remarks such as not available, house locked, and shop closed.
Findings of Court:
Notices are considered validly served; respondents are not entitled to Land Acquisition Act benefits; entitled only to solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.
Issues:
Whether respondents are entitled to land acquisition compensation or only solatium with interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where notice is returned indicating non-receipt due to locked premises or closure, service is deemed effective, denying enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Result:
Appeal allowed without costs; respondents receive solatium and interest instead.
ORDER
In view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks "not available in the house", "House locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents.
2. Leave granted.
3. The controversy raised in this case is covered by an order of this Court dated August 2, 1995 made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9048 of 1988. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and following the judgment passed by this Court, we held that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Instead, they are entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
*******
Parllel Citations of other Journals :
State of M.P. v. Hiralal & Ors., 1996(1) Supreme 753 : JT 1996(1) SC 670 : 1996(1) Scale SP-35
00024