HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus PRESIDENT LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 19-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
v. 
PRESIDENT LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL 
AND. OTHERS. 
APRIL 19, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL. JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (As amended by Act 68 of J'J34): 
~--;....__-
Section 23( 1-A)-Additional Benefit of interest @ 12%-Entitlement 
-. 
to--Pendency of acquisition proceedings before Collector on 30th April, 
1982 is essential-Benefit is inapplicable to awards made before 30th 
C 
April, 1982. 
·~ 
Section 23(2)-Enhanced solatium @ 30%-Held applicable to 
awards made by Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th 
September, 1984. 
.:i... 
D 
The lands of the respondents were acquired for a scheme of the 
Appellant-Improvement Trust. The awards for compensation were 
made by the Collector on 6th January, 1979 and 30th April, 1982 and 
the reference was disposed of by the Land Acquisition Tribunal by its 
award dated 28th March, 1983 and 29th August, 1985 by granting 
E 
solatium @ 15% on compensation and interest @ 6% on excess 
compensation. 
In view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the 
landowner.claimants made an application to the Tribanal seeking 
enban~ed solatium and interest under the amended provisions of Land 
"' 
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Tribunal allowed the application by grant-
ing higher solatium, additional benefit of interest 1111d interest on excess 
~ 
G 
compensation. 
The writ petitions filed by the Appellant-Improvement Trust 
against the decision of'tbe Tribunal were dismissed. 
Hence these appeals by the Improvement Trust. 
Allowing the appeal in part (C.A. No. 1894 of 1990) and dis-
missing the connected appeals, this Court, 
H 
HELD: 1. The benefit of higher solatium @ 341% under secti9n 
526 
_,, 
H.l.T. v .. LAND ACQUISITION 
527 
23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable to cases of awards 
made by the Collector or the Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th 
September, 1984. In the. instant case since the awards were made bet-
ween the aforesaid dates the claimants have been rightly held entitled to 
enhanced solatinm. [530EJ 
A• 
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754! followed. 
B 
2. Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (AmeDdment) Act, 
1984 clearly provides that the additional amount of interest provided 
under Section 23(1-A) of the Land• Acquisition Act, 1894.shall be applic-
able to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on 30tb 
April, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the 
Collector has made the award before that date then additional amount 
cannot be awarded. [531E] 
2.1 The claimant in the Appeal (No. 1894 of 1990) is not entitled 
c 
to additional benefit of interest under Section 23(1-A) because the 
award in this case was made long before 30th April, 1982. But the 
D 
claimant in the connected appeals are entitled to this benefit since in 
their cases the awards were made on 30th April, 1982 itself. l531F; 532A] 
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 745, explained 
-.I.. 
and held inapplicable. 
Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, J. T. 1989 4 S.C. 529, 
followed. 
3. The award uf interest on excess compensation is valid since the 
.claimants were entitled to the same under section 211 as it stood 
E 
amended by the Amending Act. [530F] 
F 
4. The order of the High Court and the Land Acquisition Tn'bunal 
in Civil Appeal No. 1894 of 1990 is therefore modified, only to the 
extent that interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum instead 
of 12% per annum. The other additional benefits granted by the Tri-
bunal shall remain in tact. [532B-C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
-...-. 
1894, 1895 & 1896 of 1990. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the Punjab & 
HaryanaHighCourtinCivilW.P.Nos.1778, 1776& 1777of1989. 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
U990) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Balbir Singh Wasu, N.S. Das Bablfor the Appellant. 
Har Dev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the 
.,_,.___~ 
B 
c 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KASLIW AL, J. Special leave granted. 
All these petitions by Special leave are disposed of by one single 
order as identical questions of law are involved and they are directed 
against the similar order of the High Court dated 9th February, 1989. 
Short controversy raised in these cases is regarding the grant of 
benefits under amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amend-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.