LexLILAWATI AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 5 S.C.R. 1160 A LILAWATI AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS. II. STATE OF JHARKHAND (Civil Appeal No. 1363 of 2007) B APRIL 4, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 - Claim under - Entitlement - s. 4 Notification issued on c 21.4.1965 - s.6 Notification issued on 10.11.1966 -Award of collector made on 6.4.1972 - s.30 of Amendment Act, 1984 made operative w.e.f. 24.9.1984 - Reference court decided reference on 30. 9. 1985 - High Court held that in view of decision in *Paripoornan case, claimant was not entitled to J benefit under ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 - On appeal, Held: Constitution Bench in **Raghubir case fixed two terminus points i.e. Award by Collector or decision of reference court must be made between 30.4. 1982 and 24. 9. 1984 - The three judge Bench in Paripoornan case observed that restrictive E interpretation should not be given - Since three judge Bench gave an interpretation contrary to what was stated by Constitution Bench, matter referred to larger Bench to consider correctness of view expressed by three judge Bench - Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - s.30. F K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a 1994(5) SCC 593; **Union of India v. Raghubir Singh 1989(2) SCC 754; *K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a 1995(1) SCC 367 - referred to. T CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G 1363 of 2007. From 'the Judgment and final Order dated 19/2/2003 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appeal from Original Decree No. 32 and 33/1986. H 1160 LILAWATI AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS. v. 1161 STATE OF JHARKHAND [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] WITH A Civil Appeal Nos. 2468, 2469, 2470, and 2471/2008 Himanshu Munshi, Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Gopal Prasad, Anil K. Jha, 8.8. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the appearing parties. B ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. ··15653, 15657, 15683 and 20741 of 2004. c 2. All these appeals involve identical questions and are therefore, taken up together for disposal. The basic issues involved in these appeals relate to entitlement of the claimants/ appellants for benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). D _._ 3. Factual position is almost undisputed and essentially as follows: Notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act was issued on 21.4.1965, Section 6 notification was issued on 10.11.1966 and E the Land Acquisition Collector's Award was made on 6.4.1972. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short the 'Amendment Act') was introduced and made operative with effect from 24.9.1984. The reference court decided reference on 30.9.1985, the F High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a [1994(5) SCC 593] the appellant was not entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the G benefit under Section 23(1-A) may not be available in view of "" ~ what has been stated in K.S. Paripoornan's case (hereinafter - referred to as 'Paripuranan I') yet in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [1989(2) SCC 754] H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A and in KS. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a [1995(1) SCC 367] (hereinafter referred to as 'Paripoornan II' )the benefit under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act are available. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and Bharat B Coking Coal Ltd. (in short the 'BCCL') the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired submitted that the view in Paripuranan II is not correct as a three judge Bench had taken a + view clearly contrary to what has been stated by the Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh's case (supra). c 6. By way of reply learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even recently in Panna Lal Ghosh v. Land Acquisition Collector [2004(1) SCC 467] this Court has adopted a view taken in Paripuranan /l's case (supra). 7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is D necessary to take note of what has been stated in Raghuveer Singh's case (supra) which is as follows: ........ "31. In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to E here is the award m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.