RAMESH DUTT versus STATE OF PUNJAB

RAMESH DUTT versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Since the claimant continued in possession and business of the poultry farm until the date of possession, and admitted earnings therefrom, he did not suffer loss in earnings and is not entitled to compensation for loss of business. The amended benefits under Act 68 of 1984 are not applicable as the award was made prior to its coming into force.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Dutt; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.f.a. No. 1005 of 1979
Outcome
Appeal of claimant dismissed; State's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Compensation for Loss of Business, Applicability of Amended Land Acquisition Act, Award of Solatium and Interest
Land Acquisition Compensation for Loss of Business Applicability of Amended Land Acquisition Act Award of Solatium and Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Dutt

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.f.a. No. 1005 of 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of business due to land acquisition.
  2. 2 Whether the benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 68 of 1984 apply to the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the claimant continued in possession and business of the poultry farm until the date of possession, and admitted earnings therefrom, he did not suffer loss in earnings and is not entitled to compensation for loss of business. The amended benefits under Act 68 of 1984 are not applicable as the award was made prior to its coming into force.

Court Disposition

Appeal of claimant dismissed; State's appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Additional compensation for business loss as awarded by High Court is not interfered with due to no challenge by the State.
  • Additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 set aside; award of District Judge granting solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on enhanced compensation from date of possession till date of deposit upheld.