Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)651; (1997)2GLR1498; 1996(6)SCALE270; (1996)6SCC125; [1996]Supp5SCR30
ORDER1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated March 9, 1988 of the High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 5825/86 and batch directing the appellant to make a reference to the civil Court. The controversy is no longer res integra.2. The admitted facts are that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed on June 26, 1981. Notice under Section 12(2) was issued on September 18, 1.981. After lapse of three years, an application came to be filed on July 30, 1985 seeking reference under Section 18. The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector) rejected the application on December 16, 1985. Challenging that order, the writ petition came to be filed. In view of the provisions in Section 18(2) read with Section 31 of the Act, after the notice was received under Section 12(2) the claimants are required to file an application under Section 18 seeking reference within a period of 30 days from the date of the award when the claimants were present at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)691; (1996)3CALLT310(SC); 1996(6)SCALE288; (1996)6SCC124; [1996]Supp5SCR25
ORDER1. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,500 per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the land (jirayat dry) at Rs. 960 per acre. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per acre for bagayat lands in which sugar cane was grown and for the rest of The land he granted at Rs. 4000 per acre. The High Court of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated September 9, 1988 confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by special leave.2. Two contentions have been raised by Shri Veerappa, learned Counsel for the appellant. The Reference Court had wrongly applied multiplier of 15 years in computing the annual yield. This Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc. : [1985]154ITR190(SC) followed in other judgments, had held that 10 years' multiplier would be the proper method of calculation of the compensation.3. Accordingly 10 years' multiplier should be applied in determing compensation under Section 23(1) of the land Acqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)47; JT1996(8)SC306; 1996(6)SCALE431; (1996)6SCC44; [1996]Supp5SCR32
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Application for impleadment allowed.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in CIMA NO. 72 of 1988.4. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is : whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')?5. The facts in nutshell are that land admeasuring 399 Kanals and 4 marlas situated in Villages Rampur, Talwal and Goverdhan Pain was acquired for public purposes, viz., defence, by publication of notification under Section 7 of the Act on October 16, 1986. The Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri in his award dated November 3, 1986 awarded compensation @ Rs. 21,000 in respect of lands situated in villages Rampur and Talwal and Rs. 10,000 per kanal in respect of land situated in village Goverdhan Pain with 10% escalati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)169; JT1996(9)SC601; (1996)10SCC425; [1996]Supp5SCR9; (1997)1UPLBEC99
ORDER1. Application for intervention is dismissed. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.2. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated April 21, 1995 declaring that the appellants are devoid of power to levy the development fee under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) as amended from time to time (for short, the 'Act').3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant-authority was constituted under Section 4 of the Act as a development authority. When the respondents filed plans for grant of sanction, a demand was made of them to deposit the development fee. Calling the demands in question, the above appeals came to be filed. Consequently, declaration was made. In addition, the High Court also found that the demands for malva charges (stacking charges) and water charges were violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it directed the appellants to give opportunity of being heard to the respondents and then levy c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)371; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)739; 1996CriLJ4432; 1996(3)Crimes247(SC); JT1997(10)SC409; 1996(6)SCALE163; (1996)11SCC355; [1996]Supp5SCR1
1. In Sessions Case No. 8 of 1980, the three appellants were variously charged and tried along with three other co-accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore by a judgment dated 24th May, 1980 convicted S. Srihari Naidu, the appellant No. 1 as well as R. Ramasubha Reddy and Ganapam Ghealla Reddy, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code. A/6 has also been convicted under Section 302/109 IPC as well as under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on each count, but all sentences were directed to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted A-2, A-3 and A-4 from all the offences they were charged with. A-1 to A-5 and A-6 were also acquitted of some of the other charges that were framed against them. The convicted accused, namely, A-1, A-5 and A-6 preferred an appeal in the High Court. The State of Andhra Pradesh also preferred an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)534; AIR1996SC2818; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)130; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)264; 1996CriLJ4139; 1996(6)SCALE353; (1996)10SCC500; [1996]Supp5SCR51
1. Both these appeals are directed against the decision dated 20.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Kurukshetra in Sessions Trial No. 39/95. The appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 297/96 namely Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath were tried with the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur in the other Crl. A. No. 637 of 1996 and also with two other accused Kaka alias Charanjit Singh and Sukhpal Singh Alias Khushpal Singh.2. It appears that the appellants Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath Chela were charged for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur were charged for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 109 of the I.P.C. and also offences under Sections 3 4 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Activities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA).3. It may be stated here that confessional statements were made by all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2795; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)653; 1996CriLJ4156; 1996(3)Crimes194(SC); JT1997(10)SC465; 1996(6)SCALE78
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ. 1. Gian Chand (Complainant) and the appellant accused were known to each other as they were neighbours living in the same locality at Karnal. It is the case of Gian Chand that fifteen days before the incident in question, the appellant/accused had come to his house and, when he was found drunk, he (the complainant) told him not to visit his house under the influence of liquor. The appellant took it as an insult. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 14th October, 1986, at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was returning to his house after attending his office duty. On the way just near his house, he stopped at a tea shop of Udhey Bhan where some persons were standing. Piare Lal also joined him. When they were going to their house, they came near the crossing (chowk) known as 'Lal Quan'. At that place, four persons, namely, Ram Lal, Anant Ram and two others were playing cards. They stopped there and were watching the game, Ved Parkash (hereinafter r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)214; AIR1996SC2760; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)566; 1996CriLJ4000; 1996(3)Crimes253(SC); JT1996(7)SC362; 1996(6)SCALE45; (1996)10SCC277
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1985 is filed by the appellant-original accused No. 1 under Section 14(1) of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, against the judgment and order dated 9th January, 1985 passed by the learned Judge, Special court, Ferozepur in case No. 36 of 1984. The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of committing the murder of Naib Singh and accordingly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Balvinder Singh (PW 5). 2. Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1988 is filed by Balbir Singh-the complainant against the very same judgment challenging the acquittal of Nachhatar Singh and Sukhpal Singh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment, they are being disposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)455; AIR1996SC2763; 1996(6)SCALE84; (1996)10SCC289
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi CJI, Sujata V. Manohar and K. Venkataswami, JJ. 1. These petitions are in respect of a proposed lease of Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf property for development to the petitioner. The Mutawalli of the said Wakf sent to the Wakf Board for approval a proposal for giving on lease the said Wakf land for development to one Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The Wakf Board, however, decided to grant a lease for development to the petitioner. This was challenged in separate writ petitions by the Mutawalli of the said Wakf and Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The writ petitions were allowed. In separate appeals filed by the petitioners as well as the Wakf Board which were heard together, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has given certain directions to the Mutawalli, asking him, inter alia, to invite fresh offers. The petitioners have filed these petitions for special leave from the judgment and order of the Division Bench. 2. Under Section 36-A o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)275; AIR1996SC3480; 1996CriLJ3994; 1996(3)Crimes76(SC); JT1996(7)SC349; 1996(4)KarLJ591; 1996(6)SCALE74
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively were put up for trial before the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried by the Special Court, under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act. The appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act.2. The prosecution case may be summarised as under :Karam Singh (A-1) is the father of Piara Singh (PW 2). Sardara Singh (A-2) was the employee of A-1. There was a dispute between A-1 and Piara Singh (PW 2) as regards the partition of the property. Jagir Singh (since deceased) was related to them. He intervened in the matter and effected a partition between A-1 and Piara Singh (PW 2). A-1 felt that the said partition was totally inequitable and Jagir Singh had shown favour to Piara Singh (PW 2) being related to him through his wife. A-1 and Piara Singh (PW 2) res...
Tag this Judgment!