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

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MALLINATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 670 JT 1995 (8)   154  1995 SCALE  (6)257

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      It is  stated in  the affidavit  filled  by  Matru  Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner,  that   on  instructions   from  the   Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur,  Somavva Patil, the second respondent herein had  left behind  her son Mallinath who is respondent No. 1 in SLP (C) No.14220/86 as her legal representative and that since  Mallinath is already on record, there is no need to bring  him on  record separately as legal representative. He is  transposed  as  legal  representative.  Since  he  is already representing  the  estate  of  his  deceased  mother Somavva Patil, it is accordingly recorded.      Leave granted.      The  controversy   hinges  upon  the  applicability  of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) as  amended by  Act 68 of 1984. Since the award of the Collector was  made much  prior to  the Amendment  Act,  the claimants are  not entitled  to the  payment  of  additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.      The appeals  are allowed  to the  above extent  and the orders of  the High  Court and  the appellate  court are set aside to  that extent.  In other  respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs.