//
you're reading...
legal issues

L.A.Act – Sec.28, 23 ( 1A) – the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to 12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year. = JAI KRISHAN (D) Thr. LRs. … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41721

 L.A.Act – Sec.28, 23 ( 1A) – the provisions of Section  23(1A) of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are  entitled  to 12% enhanced compensation  for  the  period  commencing  from  the  date  of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High  Court also failed to appreciate that the appellants are  entitled  to  interest  @ 15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of  the  L.A.  Act as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year. =

The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation but such amount  was

deposited in the Court after the date of expiry of period of  one  year.  In

the circumstances,  we  hold  that  the  appellants  are  also  entitled  to

interest @ 15% per annum under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act.

18.   The High Court failed to notice that the provisions of Section  23(1A)

of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are  entitled  to

12% enhanced compensation  for  the  period  commencing  from  the  date  of

publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High  Court

also failed to appreciate that the appellants are  entitled  to  interest  @

15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of  the  L.A.  Act

as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year.

19.   The High Court instead of dismissing  the  review  petition  ought  to

have condoned the delay, reason  of  which  was  sufficiently  explained  by

appellant and ought to have allowed the revision application  in  favour  of

the appellant.

20. In view of the findings recorded above, we set aside  the  part  of  the

impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2005 so far as it relates to  payment  of

compensation for the land, uphold the award passed by  the  Reference  Court

to the extent  above  and  direct  the  respondents  to  pay  12%   enhanced

compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) and another 15%  interest  in  terms

of proviso to Section 28 of the L.A.  Act  as  ordered  above  within  three

months..

21.    The  appeals  are  allowed  with  the  aforesaid   observations   and

directions.  There shall be no order as to costs.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41721
For Full Text – Go  for LAW FOR ALL
Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,704,216 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,852 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com