BHAG SINGH & ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 14-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

949 
BHAG SINGll & OBS. 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, THROUGH 
TIIE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CHANDIGARH 
AUGUST 14, 1985 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, CJ. ,  A.N. SEN AND 
D.P. MADON, JJ. ]  
Land 
Acquisition Act .1894, 
Sections 
23 
and 
28 
& 
Land 
Acquisition 
(Amendment) 
Act 
1984, 
Sections 
15(b), 18(a) 
and 
30(2) . 
Land acquisition - Solatium 
and 
compensation 
-
Enhanced 
rates of 'thirty per centum' and 'nine per centum' - Entitlement 
'• 
of - When arises - Awards made after April 30, 1982 
- Appeals 
arising from such awards - Whether covered. 
Compensation - Determination of by courts - Market value of 
the land acquired - Courts restricting compensation to amount 
of 
court-fee paid by claimants - Whether legal and valid. 
The Land Acquisition (Amelldment) Act, 1984 by Section 15(b) 
amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to 
provide that in sub-section (2) of section 23 for the words 
"fifteen per centum", the words "thirty per centum" shall be 
substituted, and by Section 18(a) provided that in Section 28 of 
the Principal Act for the words 'six per centum the words 'nine 
per centum' shall be substituted. Section 30(2) of the Amendment 
Act provided that the increased solatium was to be applicable "in 
relation to any awatd made by the collector or Court or to any 
order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against 
any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after 
the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land 
Acquisition (Amelldment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People) 
and before the cOllllencement of this Act. 
The State Government issued a notification on 19th October 
1974 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for 
acquisition of 
land for 
the 
purpose of establishment of a 
cantonment. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter issued a 
notice under section 9 and required persons interested in the 
land 
to 
submit 
their 
claims 
for 
coinpensation. 
The claims 
submitted by various claimants including the appellants, were 
considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and an award made on 
9th October 1975 dividing the land acquired into three belts and 
.,,. awarding compensation at varying rates. The appellants and other 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
claimants 
being 
aggrieved 
by 
the 
aforesaid 
award 
sought 
references under section 18 of the Act, and the Additional 
District 
Judge, 
enhanced 
the 
rates 
of 
compensation. 
The 
appellants who were still dissatisfied preferred appeals to the 
High Court. 
A single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of 
compensation, and directed that the claimants shall be entitled 
to interest at the rate of 6% per annum and solatium at the rate 
.. 
of 
15% on the 
enhanced amount 
of compensation. 
This 
order 
awarding enhanced compensation was, however, made subject to the 
claims put forward in the memoranda of appeal preferred by the 
claimants 
and 
the 
Court 
fee 
paid 
on 
such 
claims. As 
the 
appellants had not paid the requisite court fee on the enhanced 
r 
amount of compensation they could not get the benefit of the said 
order. 
The 
appellants 
preferred 
Letters 
Patent 
Appeals. 
The 
Division Bench dismissed the appeals taking the view that the 
appellants were entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation 
for acquisition of their land, but restricting the benefits of 
the enhanced compensation only to those claimants who had made 
payment of proper court fee. 
In the Appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of 
the 
appellants: 
(1) 
that 
they 
should 
have 
been 
given 
an 
opportunity of paying up the deficit court fee, so that like 
other claimants, they could also get enhanced compensation, and 
(2) that by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act of 1984, 
the claimants are entitled to be paid solatium at the rate of 30% 
of the compensation ultimately awarded to them instead of 15% 
awarded by the Division Bench as also interest at the rate of 9% 
instead of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation-. 
Allowing the Appeals , 
llKLD: 
1. (i) The order passed by the Division Bench in so 
far as it refused to grant enhanced compensation to the appel­
lants on account of non-payment of deficit court fee is se.t 
aside. It is directed that the appellants shall be paid enhanced 
compensation at the rate determined by the Division Bench. They 
sha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.