LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO, A.P. versus B.V. REDDY AND SONS

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 14-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO, A.P. 
v. 
B.V. REDDY AND SONS 
FEBRUARY 14, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 25 (as it stood prior lo its amendment 
by Act 68 of I 984). 
Land Acquisition-Amount of compensation-Maximum limit-Held, The 
compensation cannot be in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant but 
in no case would it be less than that awarded by the Collector under S.9. 
Section 25-Nature of-Procedural or substantive-Held, ls substantive 
in nature. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Substantive provision -Prospective or retrospective-Held, A substantive 
provision cannot be retrospective in nature unless the provision itself so 
indicates. 
B 
c 
D 
The land belonging to the respondents was acquired and compensation E 
paid at a certain amount per acre, which was less than that claimed by the 
respondents-daimants. The Reference Court determined the market value of 
the acquired land at much higher amount but restricted the quantum of 
compensation to the extent claimed by the respondents in view of Section 25 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act F 
68 of 1984. A Single Judge of the High Court upheld the decision of the 
Reference Court But the Division Bench enhanced the compensation to the 
market value on the ground that Section 25 of the Act being procedural in 
nature there was no bar for awarding compensation more than the amount 
claimed by the respondent-claimant. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 25 of the Act 
was substantive in nature and not procedural and that the High Court erred 
in applying the amended provision of Section 25 of the Act in awarding 
compensation more than the amount claimed. 
G 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that this Court while H 
1041 
1042 
SUPREME COliRT REPORTS 
(2001] I <;.C.R. 
A declaring the law and pointing out the error in the judgment of the High Court 
should not interfere with the High Court's judgment in the inter~~t of justice. 
...... 
~ 
The following question of law arose before this Court: 
(1) Can the provision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
B be construed to be procedural in nature or is substantive? 
(2) If it is held to be substantive in nature, then can the amended 
provisions of Section 25 of the Act would apply to a case where the award of 
the Land Acquisition Collector had been made much prior to the amendment 
~
in question? 
c 
(3) Whether the judgment of this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti 's 
case can be held to be correctly decided? 
(4) Whether at all it would be appropriate for this Court to lay down 
the law and yet not to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of 
D the High Court with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded? 
(S) Whether the petition under Article 32 can be entertained for deciding 
the validity of the unamended provisions of Section 25? 
• 
Allowing the 11ppeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : t. t. On a plain reading of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 it is difficult to hold that it is procedural in nature. On the other 
hand, it unequivocally limit~ the power of the Court on a reference beine made 
to award compensation, more than the amount claimed by the claimants and 
less than the amount awarded by the Collector. In other words, the substantive 
F right of a claimant who has made a claim to the compensation, pursuant to 
a notice under Section 9, cannot be more than the amount claimed and under 
• 
any circumstances, ·would not be less than the amount which the Land 
Acquisition Collector has awarded under Section 11, since that award of the 
Collector is the offer that is made to the claimant. [ 1049-B-CJ 
G 
1.2. Section 25(5) of the Act contemplates a situation where the claimant 
for sufficient reason had omitted to make a claim and the Reference Court 
.on being satisfied about the same may permit the claim~nt to make a claim. 
) 
But the unambiguous and clear language of Section 25(1), as it stood prior to . 
... 
the amendment, makes it explicitly clear that if the c;aimant bas made a claim 
pursuant to a notice under Section 9, then the Court would be incompetent 
H to award any amount exceeding the said claim. (1049-E-FJ 
• 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. REDDY 
1043 
1.3. The provision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is A 
substantive in nature. [1050-AI 
Krishi 

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