Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Pradeep Kumar Srivastava And Ors. on 27 July, 1995
After considering the
statement of objects of Section 28A of the Act and Pradeep
Kumari's case (supra-1), the Division Bench of the composite
High Court, eventually upheld the order in the writ petition
and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the State. Thus, the
facts in M.Janardhana's are different from the facts at the
case at hand. Hence, the ratio will not apply to the facts of
this case. Awardees under Section 28-A of the Act, at no
stretch of imagination, get relief beyond the relief granted in
LAOP, reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors vs Sri D. Janardhana Rao And Another on 23 September, 1976
22. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon
the judgment of the composite High Court in Government of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Musalikoppu Janardhana3. In the said
case, while re-determining the compensation, the authority
restricted the interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing
of their applications under Section 28A of the Act and to 15%
per annum from the expiry of one year and till the date of
payment. Since interest was restricted while re-determining
2
(2006) 4 SCC 322
3
2009 (2) ALD 567
Page 15 of 18
SRS J
W.P.No.2694 of 2021
the compensation, learned single Judge allowed the writ
petition filed by the petitioners therein.
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1