Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)

Gurpreet Singh vs Union Of India on 19 October, 2006

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act providing for payment of compensation. A perusal of the affidavit filed by Shri T.K. Goyal, P.C.S., Collector Land Acquisition, Department of Industries and Commerce, Punjab, Chanidgarh, dated 27.8.2009, would show that payment of the amount of 80% of the estimated compensation of the land was made on 23.12.1997 and 23.1.1998 to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The balance CWP No. 10568 of 2009 6 amount of 20% compensation, which included the element of interest under Section 34 of the Act, as per the award has also been received by the petitioners on 11.6.1999. A perusal of Annexure R-1 appended with the aforesaid affidavit shows that the compensation has been paid by including the element of solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12%, interest @ 9% for the first year and interest @ 15% for the subsequent years. Therefore, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is well settled that interest under Section 34 of the Act on delayed payment is payable, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 and Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211.
1