LexLILAWATI AGARWAL ETC. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 2 S.C.R. 292 LILAWATI AGARWAL ETC. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 1363 of2007) APRILOl,2016 [DIPAK MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 (2) [as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894} -Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - s. 30(2) - Enhanced solatium - Benefit of-- As extended by s. 30(2) of Amendment Act - Interpretation of s. 30(2) of Amendment Act given by Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh case - Clarification in K.S. Paripoornan (II) case by Three Judge Bench - Jn the present case Division Bench expressed doubt with regard to correctness of decision in Paripoornan (II) case in view of the ;udgment in Raghubir Singh 's case and hence referred the 111a1ter to Larger Bench - Held: The decision in Raghubir Singh 's case was confined only to grant of solatium in re~pect of award passed between the two dates i.e. 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984 and it was 1101 relatable to any award as such passed after the amended date - Par.ipoornan (I.I) case postulates about the awards passed after the Amendment Act came into force - The decision is in consonance with Raghub!r Singh 's case - Decision in Paripooranan (II) case does not run counter to the authority in Constitution Bench - The award in the present case was passed after e1iforcement of Amendment Act - Therefore principles stated in Paripoornan (II) cuse would be squarely applicable - Amount of solatium directed to be computed qfier taking into consideration Sunder's case passed by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The decision in * Raghubir Singh 's case was only concerned with the grant of solatium in respect of the award passed between two dates, namely, April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. The issue before the Constitution Bench was not relatable to any award as such passed after the amended date. In view of the principle stated in Constitution Bench judgment in 292 LILAWATI AGARWAL ETC. v. THE STATE OF Jl-IARKHAND ETC. *R"gh"bir Singh case and what has been clarified in three Judge Bench judgment in **K.S. Paripoortum (II) C(lse, it cannot be said that the three-Judge Bench decision runs counter to the authority in the Constitution Bench. It also does not give a different interpretation to Section 30(2) that what has been st~ted by the Constitution Bench. In fact, ** K.S. Paripoortutn (JI) clearly postulates about the awards that have been passed by the court after the Amendement Act has come into force which is in consonance with the ratio laid down in * R"gh ubir Singh 's case. The three-Judge Bench has only observed that the restricted interpretation placed by the Constitution Bench in * R"ghubir Singh case should not convey that Section 23(2) would not apply to the awards of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. Thus, the controversy with which the three-Judge Bench was dealing with was absolutely different and the view expressed by it is absolutely in accord with the principles laid down in *R"g/111bir Sing/i's case. Additionally, it is also in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the view expressed in ** K.S. P"ripoomt111 (II) case, as it has appositely understood the rule exposited in *R"ghubir Sillgfl's case. [Paras_8 and 10] [301-E-F; 302-D-G] *Union of India and Another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. (1989) 2 SCC 754:1989 (3) SCR 316; ** K.S. Paripoornan (II} vs. State of Kera/a and Others (1995) 1 SCC 367: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 696 - explained. Lilawati Aganva/ (Dead) By Lrs. and Others vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 15 SCC 464: 2008 (5) SCR 1160; K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1985) 1 SCC 582:1985 (2) SCR 914; Bhag Singh V, Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 sec 737: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 949; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh 2008 (15) SCC 464: 2008 (5) SCR 1160 - referred to. 2. The award in the present case had been passed by the reference court on 30th September, 1985. Therefore, there cannot be any trace of donbt that principle stated in **K.S. Paripoornan 293 A B c D E F G H 294 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 2 S.C.R. (II) case would squarely be applicable. The High Court by the impugned judgment has wrongly opined that the principl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.