1996 JTR(SC) 642
1998 8 SCC 704 ; 1998 KHC 3774
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. T. Nanavati, K. Ramaswamy
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
RAJ RANI AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 2382-84 of 1994,
decided on March 21, 1996.
Entitlement to payment of solatium and interest under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 is determined based on precedent and previous court decisions.
Act Referred :REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT : S.8(3)
Solatium and Interest - Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The court held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium under the provisions of the Act, based on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision.
Fact of the Case:
The only question was whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium based on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the respondents to the payment of solatium and interest under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] to conclude that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and no costs were imposed.
Solatium and Interest - Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The court held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium under the provisions of the Act, based on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision.
Fact of the Case:
The only question was whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium based on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the respondents to the payment of solatium and interest under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent set by a previous three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] to conclude that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and no costs were imposed.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The only question is whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The controversy is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] had considered the entire controversy and had held that the respondents were not entitled to the payment of interest and solatium. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to place reliance upon a two-Judge Bench decision in Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 60]. In view of the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla case [1993 Supp (2) SCC 149] the ratio of Rao Narain Singh case [(1993) 3 SCC 60] is no longer good law.
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.