Preview

Legal Methods

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2818 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Legal Methods
Case Summary
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh

SCHOOL OF LAW
CHRIST UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE- 560028
2012-2013

NAME: VIVEK.K.R
REGISTER NO: 1216044
CLASS: 1 BA LLB A

Identification
Name of the case: Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc.
Jurisdiction: Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.1984 of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos. 113 and 114 of 1968.
Level of the deciding Court: Supreme Court
Date of decision: 16.05.1989
Equivalent citation: AIR1989SC1933, [1989]66CompCas466(SC), [1989]178ITR548(SC), 1990()JLJ251(SC), JT1989(2)SC427, 1989(2)KLT168(SC), 1989-1-LW414, 1989MhLJ672, 1989(1)SCALE1337, (1989)2SCC754, [1989]3SCR316, [1989]74STC313(SC)

Facts and Procedural history
The land belonging to the respondents, in a village called Dhaka was taken by compulsory acquisition, through a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 13th Nov, 1959. The amount of compensation (or solatium) was announced by the collector on 30th March, 1963. The respondents approached the Additional District Magistrate for a higher compensation, and the compensation was enhanced under Section 18 of the Act on 10th June, 1968. The respondents then filed an appeal to the High Court seeking further compensation. When the case was pending before the Honorable High Court, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982 was introduced in Parliament on 30 April, 1982, and became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 on 24 September, 1984. Vide the order dated 6th Dec 1984, the High court raised the amount of compensation and the rate of interest payable on the compensation to facilitate the change brought about by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Court awarded solatium at 30 percent of the market value. This award was contested by the appellants through the Special Leave Petition Nos: 8194- 8195 of 1985.
The case was presented before a division bench of the Supreme

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful