K. S. PARIAPOORNAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 17-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
K. S. PARIAPOORNAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 1991 
[M. M. PUNCHHI AND B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Section 23( 1-A) (As introduced by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 
1984}-Retrospectivity-Extent of-Land acquisition-Award given on 
30.12 .1980 i.e. before introduction of Land Acquisition Amendment Bill in the 
Parliament-Civil Court's decree on reference given on 28.2.85 i.e. subse-
quent to coming into force of the Amendment Act-Held benefit of additional 
compensation under section 23(1-A) not applicable to such proceedings. 
Expression "Court" refers not only to Civil Court but also to High Court 
and Supreme Court-"Award"-Jncludes award of compensation or any 
other benefit under the Act by the High Court. 
Section 1 (2) (As amended by Act 68 of 1984 Act}-Effect of amendment 
of section 1 (2) on acquisition proceedings initiated under Kerala Land Acqui-
sition Act, 1961 Explained. 
Statute Law-Substantive provision-Retrospectivity is not to be pre-
sumed unless provided for expressly or impliedly. 
Proceedings for acquisition of the petitioners' Jand were initiated 
and a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Kreala Land Acquisition Act 
was issued on 21.3.1978. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was 
made on 15.5.1979. The Collector gave his award on 30.12.1980 and the 
possession of the lands taken in 1981. Since the claimants were not 
satisfie',I with the award, a reference was made to the Civil Court under 
section 18 of the Act. By its decision dated 28.2.85 the Civil Court 
enhanced the compensation. 
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended by the Land Acquisi-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
tion (Amendment) Act, 1984. By section 15 of the Amendment Act, sub-
section (1-A) was introduced in section 23 of the Act under which the 
benefit of additional compe"nsation was provided for. Though the Amend-
ment Act came into force w.e.f. 24.9.84, yet by Section 30 of the Amend-
H 
ment Act the newly introduced sub-section 1-A of Section 23 was given 
retrospective effect. 
485 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
A 
In these petitions on the question: whether the land-holders were 
entitled to the benefit of additional compensation under section 23(1-A)? 
this Court, 
· 
HELD: 1. The governing point for determining the amount of com-
~ 
pensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act is the date of 
B notification under Section 4 of the Act. (492-F] 
2. Section 23(1-A) can be visualized as if a superstructure on the 
structuring of Section 23(1), which in turn rests on the twin pillars of 
Sections 11 and 15 which in turn rests on the notification under section 4 
C of the Act as its foundation, the date of publication of which is the 
foundation stone. [492-G] 
3. A Court when applying sub-section 1-A of Section 23 would do so 
only if it has in hand an acquisition based upon a notification under 
Section 4 of the Act issued on 24.9.1984 or thereafter and not to any such 
D notification issued earlier to that date. Same would be the role of the 
Collector at his end when employing Section 15 and making an award 
under Section 11 of the Act: (492-H, 493-A] 
E 
F 
4. Sub-section(l) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act, 1984 gives a 
limited retrospective effect to newly introduced sub-section (1-A) of 
Section 23. The said sub-section applies also to and in relation to two 
situations: firstly to a case where the proceedings for acquisition of land 
are pending under the principal Act on 30.4.1982 but wherein no award 
is made by the Collector before the said date and secondly to a case where 
the proceedings for acquisition of land are commenced after 30.4.82. In 
such a case, it is immaterial whether the award by the Collector is made 
before 24.9.1984 or subsequent thereto. (490 F-H] 
5. The instant case does not fall in either of the two situations con-
templated by sub-section (1) of section 30 of Amendment Act. In this case, 
not only the proceedings ofland acquisition are initiated prior to 30.4.1982, 
G the award of the Collector is also made prior to the said date. There.fore, 
the benefit of sub-section 1-A of Section 23 is not available to the claimants 
here. (49~-A] 
H 
Union of India & Anr. etc. etc. v. Zora Singh etc. etc., [1992) 1 
sec 673, dissented from. 
\1.---
,, 
.. 
PARIAPOORNAN v. STATE 
487 
Union of India and another etc. v.Raghubir Singh, (dead) by Lrs. 
A 
[1989) 2 sec 754, referred to. 
Unio

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