KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI versus KANHAIYA LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 29-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT! 
A 
v. 
KANHAIY A LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
-
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 25 and 28 (as they stood prior c 
to amendment by Act 68 of 1984). 
Acquisition of /and-Award given, and proceedings concluded, prior 
to amendment Act-Benefits of amended provision-Grant of-Held: High 
Court or Supreme Court cannot grant benefit of amended provisions in 
respect of awards given prior to amendment-Compensation also cannot D 
exceed the amount claimed and interest is limited to 6% per annum-Hence, 
High Court erred in (i) enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd 
to Rs. 11 per Sq. Yd and (ii) granting of interest at 9% per annum to be 
increased to 15% if increased amount of compensation is not paid within one 
year-However, enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000 per 
bigha, valid 
E 
Sectior1 25-Nature of provision-Held, is substantive-Hence, 
awarding, curtailing, restricting or adding right to compensation not 
retrospective so as to make it applicable to concluded proceedings prior to 
amendment. 
F 
The respondent's lands were acquired by the appellant-Samiti under the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award was made by the Special Land 
Acquisition Officer on 27-12-1977. On a reference under Section 18 of the 
Act market value @ Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd. was fixed with solatium at 15% and 
interest at 6% per annum on 28.2.1981. On appeal, High Court enhanced G 
the rate of compensation from Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd. to Rs. 11 per Sq. Yd. The 
appellant-Samiti filed an appeal before the High Court and the respondent-
-
landowners filed cross-objections. 
The High Court enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 3 per Sq. 
Yd. to Rs. 11 per Sq. Yd. The High Court also granted interest as per amended H 
..... 
531 
/ 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum from the date on which possession of 
land was taken. The High Court further held that if the exce~s amount was 
paid after the expiry of a period of one year the interest would be 15% per 
annum. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court should 
B not have enhanced the compensation over and above what was claimed by the 
landowners by applying the amended Sections 25 and 28 of the Act. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the compensation 
awarded by the Court under Section 25 was only a procedural right and not 
C a substantive right and, therefore, the Amending Act would be applicable in 
both computing the compensation and the interest as per the Amending Act. 
The following questions arose before this Court :-
(1) Whether the High Court could at all have awarded the compensation 
D exceeding the claim made by the owners in the reference. 
E 
(2) Whether the High Court was right in awarding interest @ 9% and 
15% to the respondents-landowners in a case where the award was rendered 
on 27.12.1977 and the reference order was also passed on 28.2.1981. 
Allowing the appeal and dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before its 
substitution by Act 68 of 1984, mandated the court not to award compensation 
exceeding the amount so claimed by the landowners and not to be less than 
the amount awarded by the Collector. This very clearly limits awarding of 
F compensation within the amount claimed; On the facts of the present case it 
is not in dispute that the award itself was given on 27.12.1977 and even 
pi:-oceedings pursuant to referring order were concluded on 28.2.1981 i.e. 
much prior to the aforesaid Amending Act. Thus, on the facts of this case it 
is the unamended Section 25 which is applicable and not the amended Section. 
In view of this the peripheral limitation on the court awarding the compensation 
G would equally apply to the High Court exercising its power as the first appellate 
court. Thus, on the facts of this case compensation cannot exceed what is 
claimed. [536-G-H; 537-C] 
Gobardhan Mahto ,. State of Bihar, [1979) 4 SCC 330, relied on. 
H 
1.2. High Court committed error in enhancing the compensation from 
-
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT! v. KANHAIY A LAL 
533 
' 
Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd. to Rs. 11 per Sq. Yd. The enhancement could only be to the A 
extent the respondents-landowners claimed. It is also not in dispute that the 
claim by the landowners was Rs. 10,000 per Bigha. Hence, though the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.