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

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIRALAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/01/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   669        1996 SCALE  (1)SP35

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      In view  of the  office report,  it would be clear that the  respondents   obviously  managed  to  have  the  notice returned with  postal remarks  "not available in the house", "House locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must  be deemed  that the notices have been served on the respondents.      Leave granted.      The controversy  raised in  this case  is covered by an order of  this Court  dated August  2, 1995  made  in  Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.9048 of 1988. We have heard the counsel  for the  appellant and  following the  judgment passed by  this Court,  we held that the respondents are not entitled  to   the  benefit   of  the   provisions  of  Land Acquisition Act,  1894,  as  amended  by  Act  68  of  1984. Instead, they  are entitled  to solatium at 15% and interest at 6%  on the  enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but,   in  the circumstances, without costs.