Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MALLINATH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 670 JT 1995 (8) 154
1995 SCALE (6)257
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
It is stated in the affidavit filled 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.
Leave granted.
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.
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.