LexK.S. P ARIPOORNAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K.S. P ARIPOORNAN
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH C.J., P.B. SAWANT, S.C. AGRAWAL,
R.M. SAHAI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984)-S.23( 1-A)-Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984-S.30(1)-Award of additional amount
payable under s.23( 1-A) in pending proceedings before the reference C
court--H eld, (per majority) S.23 ( 1-A) confers substantive right to additional
amount, and is prospective-Reference court may not award additional
amount in pending proceedings except to the extent provided in S.30( 1) of the
amending Act-Transitional provisions in amending Act, held, is integral part
of amended provisions-Zora Singh, held, reversed-Transitional Provisions--: D
Prospectivity.
Interpretation of Statutes:-Retrospectivity-Land Acquisition Act,
1894-S.23(1-A)-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984-S.30(1)-
Held, (per majority) statute is retrospective if it operates on cases or facts
coming into existence before its commencement, and affects, even if for future E
only, past transactions or other conduct-Held further, statute dealing with
substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it expressly or by necessary
implication has retrospective effect-S.23(1-A), held, is prospective, and does
not apply to pending proceedings except to extent provided by the statute.
Interpretation of Statutes-Extrinsic aids-Statement of Objects and F
Reasons and speeches in Parliament-Held, (per majority) cannot be used as
aids to constrnction of statute.
Constitution of India-Article 14-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S.23( 1-
A)-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984-S.30(1)-Limited retrospec-
G
tivity--Provisions having effect from date of-original Bill being introduced in
Lok Sabha-Held, not arbitrary-Constitutionality upheld-Interpretation of
Statutes.
Constitution of India-Article 31A(1) Proviso-Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (as amended in 1984)-S.23 (1-A)-Land Acquisition (Amendment) H
405
406
/
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Act, 1984-S.30(1)-Held, (per majority) object of Article 31 A is to facilitate
agrarian reforms-l'rincipal law not relating to agrarian reform, Article 31A
has no bearing on· the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
In Union of India v.Zora Singh, [1992) 1 SCC 673 decided by a three
B Judge Bench, it was held that the payment of additional amount @12% per
annum on the market value under s.23(1·A) of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 ('Act'); inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984
('amending Act') is to be ordered in every case where reference was pending
before the reference court on the date of commencement of the amending
C Act even· though the award of the Collector was made prior to April 30,
1982. The correctness of this view was doubted by a two Judge bench and
the matter was referred to a larger bench, for considering the correctness
of the decision in Zora Singh Case.The question referred for examination
by the larger bench was whether the additional amount payable @12% per
D annum on the market value under s.23(1·A) is restricted to matters
referred to in s.30(1)(a) and (b) of the amending Act or is to be awarded
in every case where the reference .was pending before the reference court •
on September 24, 1984 (the date of commencement of the amending Act)
irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector.
E
While urging that Zora Singh lays down the correct law, it was inter
alia contended for the claimants that S.23(1~A) does not involve giving
retrospective effect only because a part of the requisites for its action is
drawn from events antecedent to its passing; that the language used in
S.23(1·A) being clear, its scope cannot be limited by the Transitional
F
Provisions in s.30(1) of the amending Act; that where a reference has been
made under the Act, the acquisition proceedings do not terminate with
the making of the award by the Collector; and the object of the amending
Act shows that it was Parliament's intention to remove the hardship
caused by pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods rendering
~e scale of compensation to be unrealistic.
G
For the Union of India and the States it was contended that since
the insertion of S.23(1·A) imposes an ad«!itional amount by way of com·
pensation, it can only apply to proceedings for acquisition initExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.