STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ARJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE of the LRs of Murari, respondent No. 4, is dispensed with as the interest of the LRs can be well safeguarded by the presence of respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) HEARD on merits.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and submits that a reading of section would show that the Legislature has not awarded interest on solatium and, therefore, the Court below was in error when interest was awarded on solatium to the land owners.