Binding precedent limits land acquisition compensation benefits; enhanced statutory relief was confined to the earlier settled entitlement.

Binding precedent controlled the claim to enhanced land acquisition compensation, so the respondents could not invoke the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court applied the earlier decision as governing authority and confined the relief to the entitlement already settled there. As a result, solatium remained at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession until deposit, and the broader claim to amended statutory benefits failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions governing land acquisition compensation, including the rate of solatium and interest payable on enhanced compensation.

Analysis: The controversy was treated as covered by an earlier decision of the Court. On that footing, the respondents were held not entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court applied the governing precedent and accepted only the relief already settled thereunder.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions, and were entitled only to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the compensation payable to the respondents was confined to the rates and entitlement stated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy is covered by binding precedent, the claim to enhanced statutory benefits must be confined to the relief already determined by that precedent.

---