LexGHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ANOOP SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
ANOOP SINGH AND ANR.
JANUARY 23, 2003
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Section 25 {prior to Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68of1984) and
C Section 53-Compensation-Whether can be awarded over and above the
claimed amount-Award passed prior to the effective date of amended Section
25-Amendment of the claim under CPC allowed-Held, though pre-
~
amendment Section would be attracted in the case, but in the instant case it
does not get att;acted in view of the amendment of the claim as CPC is
D applicable to the proceedings under the Act-Code a/Civil Procedure, 1908.
Sections 23(2) and 28 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1984, Section 23(1-A) (as inserted by Land Acquisition Amendment Act,
1984); Sections 30(J)(a),(b) and 30(2)-Applicability of the amended provisions
to pending proceedings-Held, in the/acts of the case, Sections 23(2) and 28
E are applicable as the dates of award passed by the Collector as well as the
Reference Court fall within the time span specified in Section 30(2/-Section
23(1-A) is applicable to pending proceedings only when the cases/all within
the ambit of Section 30(1)(a) and (b)-Jn the/acts of the case, not applicable
since the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 30(1)(a) and (b).
F
In land acquisition proceedings, claimants being dissatisfied with the
compensation amount, filed application for reference claiming therein
compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard. After the case was
referred to Reference Court, claimants filed a petition for amendment of
the claim, under CPC seeking fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs.
G 100 per sq. yard and the application was allowed. Reference Court
determined compensation of the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard and awarded
solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.
Subsequent to passing of award Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984 was passed whereby Sections 25, 23 and 28 were amended. Section
H
sn
G.D.A. v. ANOOP SINGH
523
25 was substituted so as to remove the bar against the award of A
y
compensation in excess of what was claimed. Sections 23 and 28 enhanced
the rates of solatium and interest.
In appeal of the claimants, High Court enhanced the market value
to Rs. 85 per sq. yard and directed 30% solatium and interest at enhanced
rate prescribed by amended Section 28. It also awarded an additional B
amount u/s 23(1-A). Appeal of the appellant-authority was dismissed by
High Court. Hence the present appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the award was passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court earlier to the effective date
of substitution of Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, the
limitation on the power of the Court to award compensation as enjoined
c
by the pre-amended Section would be attracted. However, there is a
formidable impediment for the appellant to take shelter under the pre- D
existing Section 25. On a petition filed by the claimant, the application
wherein compensation was claimed at Rs. 20 per square Yard was allowed
to be amended by an order of the Reference Court. By virtue of Section
53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of CPC shall apply to all
proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything E
contained in the Act. There is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act to
file a petition for amendment of the claim under the Land Acquisition Act
to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the
quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the Land
Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment.
When once this amendment is recognized and taken note of, it is obvious F
that the bar under Section 25 does not get attracted. Legality or propriety
of the order permitting amendment was neither specifically challenged
before the High Court nor a specific ground taken that it was contrary to
Section 25. At this stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to assail the
correctness of the order permitting amendment. [526-H; 527-A-Fl
G
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal. [20001 7 SCC, relied
on.
2.1. In the present case, the dates of the award of the Collector and
the award made by the Reference Court, both fall' within the time span H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2003) I S.C.R.
A specified inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.