LexKARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus SUMITRA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 313 KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST A v. SUMITRA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. · (Civil Appeal Nb. 5782 of 2002) MARCH 24, 2008 B "' + [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.23(1-A) and 28 -Award passed by Land Acquisition Collector in 1972 - No enhancement of compensation in c excess of the award passed by Collector - Entitlement to solatium u/s.23(1-A) and benefits u/s.28 - Held: Not entitled - Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - s.30(1). Appellant filed writ petitions challenging award of D :y solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and other '~ .. amounts permissible under ss.23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petitions were dismissed. In appeal to this Court, the contention of Appellant is that the benefits were not available because of the specific E provisions of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984; that s.23(1-A) was not applicable and further that since 'there was· no enhancement of compensation in excess of the award of the Collector, the benefits under Section 28 of the Act were also not F ). applicable. Allowing the appeals, the Court , HELD: 1.1. Entitlement of additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition proceedings as on April 30, 1982 or G commencement of acquisition proceedings after that -~ date. Section 30 sub-section (1 )(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall be 313 H 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R. A applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on April 30, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot be award.ed. Section 30, sub-section (1)(b) provides that B Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceedings commenced after April 30, 1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or not before September .24, 1984. [Para 6] (317-8, C, D, E] 1.2. When the Civil Court on reference under Section C 18, or the High Court or in some States District Judge exercising appellate power under section 54 or civil court under Section 26, as the case may be, awards compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to award D a·dditional benefits envisaged in sub-section (I-A) of section 23, sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act. In other words, enhancement of the compensation in excess of the award of the collector under Section 11 is a condition precedent to exercise the E power to award statuto1')' additional amounts envisaged under the aforesaid respective provisions on the excess ·compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal confirming the award of the Collector or that of the civil· court, then it has no jurisdiction and power to award F additional statutory amount under the respective provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. [Para 8] (318-G, 319-A, 8, CJ 1.3. From a readin~J of the orders passed by the Reference Court it is clear that there was no enhancement G c;>f the rates as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. That being so, benefits under Section 28 of the Act are · not available to the respondents. The award was passed .. _ . on 7 .11.1972. The Reference Court decided the case on ..... - 18.10.1997. That will not change the position because the H relevant date is the date of award by the Collector under KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST v SUMITRA DEVI 315 (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] the Act. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in A dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The inevitable ~onclusion is that respondents are not entitled to solatium under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and similarly the benefits under Section 28 of the Act. [Para 9] [319-D, E, F] B .. .+ Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277; Kashiben Bhikabai and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2002)2 SCC 605 and The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Jagir Singh etc. (JT 1995 (9) SC 1) - relied on. c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5782 of 2002. From the final Judgment and order dated 29/1/2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. D .-> -l' No. 6035/1998
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.