Part No.II - Supreme Court of India

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANDHRA PRADESH v. 333
A. RAMACHANDRA REDDY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
10.1.1990 by issuing the subsequent notifications dated
9.9.1993 and 16.2.1994. The appellant cannot therefore
contend that the second preliminary notification is redundant or
that first preliminary notification continues to hold good. In the
circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the
compensation should be determined with reference to the date
of publication of the second preliminary notification, namely
19.11.1993.
11. If we examine the quantum of compensation awarded
by the High Court with reference to the date of gazetting of the
second preliminary notification, that is 19.11.1993, we find that
the compensation award is not excessive and does not call for
interference. It has been determined with reference to a sale
transaction dated 12.11.1993, just a few days prior to the
publication of the second preliminary notification in the gazette
dated 19.11.1993. The High Court has also made a deduction
of 40% in the market value disclosed by the said sale
transaction.
12. In some of the counter affidavits filed in the special
leave petitions by the claimants, they have alleged that their
special leave petitions (challenging the judgment of the High
Court and seeking higher compensation) were dismissed as
barred by time and therefore, they may be permitted to make
a counter claim for a higher compensation. Such counter-claims
in counter-affidavits in special leave petitions are impermissible
and not maintainable and cannot be entertained.
13. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 334
PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS.
v.
SHAKUNTALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2005)
JANUARY 12, 2011
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 166 read with ss.2(30) and 50 – Fatal accident – Claim
petitions by heirs of deceased persons – At the time of
accident offending truck in possession of transferee but
change of ownership not recorded in registration certificate –
Truck covered under insurance policy taken out in the name
of recorded owner – Claims Tribunal held the claimants
entitled to compensation – Liability to pay compensation –
HELD: In view of the omission to change the name of owner
in certificate of registration, the transferor (recorded owner)
must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for
the purposes of the Act – Therefore, he was equally liable for
payment of compensation amount – Further, since the
insurance policy was taken out in his name, he was
indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 136 – Appeal – Similar relief to non-appellants –
Claims Tribunal allowed two claim petitions filed by heirs of
two victims of a motor accident and held them entitled to
specified amounts of compensation – Appeal before
Supreme Court only in one case by heirs of one of the
deceased – Directions given to insurance company for
payment of compensation to heirs of both the deceased in
both the cases – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal.
334