http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: IMPROVEMENT TRUST, SANGRUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURJIT SINGH SANDHU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   111        1996 SCALE  (1)815

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.        Mr.  K.R.R. Pillai,  learned counsel, is appearing on behalf of  respondent Nos.5, 6 and ]4 to 18. Notice had heen sent on  29.3.1994 to  respondent   Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 lo 13, but till  date they  have not  appeared either  in person or through  their   counsel.  Acknowledgements  have  not  been received. Therefore,  they  must  be  deemed  to  have  been served. 2nd respondent was served on 31.3.1994. He is not appearing either in person or through his counsel.      The controversy is whether the respondents are entitled to the  additional amount  under Section  23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 as  amended by  Act 68  of 1984.  The Collector’s award  is dated  September 10,  1979  while  the notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978. Under  these circumstances,  the respondents  are  not entitled to  the additional  amount under  Section 23(1A) of the Act.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.