LexMIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND ORS. versus SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND ORS. v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LMTI ACQUISITION HYDERABAD MAY 15, 1992 [N.M. KASLIWAL AND M.M. P~CHHI, JJ.) LandAcquisitionAct, 1894/LandAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984: C Ss. 12, 18, 23, 28118, 3<>-Land-Acquisition of-Award-Compensa- tion-To be similar for similarly circumstanced lands. D E Awards by Collector and Reference Court-Given prior to 30.4.1982- Solatium-To be given at the rate of 15%--lnterest-To be given at 6% from date of possession upto 23.9.1984. Rate of Interest after 24.9.1984-Matter refe"ed to larger Bench. High Court/Supreme Court-Appellate jurisdiction--Co"ection of award--Eff ect of. Words and phrases : Expression "any such award" occumng in s. 30 (2) of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984--lnterpretation of. Certain plots of land of the claimant-appellants were acquired under F the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector gave the award on 10.6.1968 and the reference Court on 30.8.1972. The claimants filed appeal before the High Court for enhancing the compensation. The entire land was categorised in 6 belts according to its quality and situation. The High Court allowed the compensation at different rates for each of the 6 belts. G In the appeal by special leave to this Court it was contended on behalf of the claimant-appellants that the High Court committed an error in not awarding compensation for the entire land under acquisition at least at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard as was awarded by it and amrmed by this Court in respect of land in Survey Nos. 1033 to 1035, because there H W.s no distinction between the two lands which were acquired by one and 394 - .-4;\ MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR 395. )r the same notification. As rega1·ds the interest it was contended that in the A event of this Court enhancing the compensation, the claimants were en- titled to enhanced rate of interest on the enhanced amount of compensa- tion with effect from the date of possession. On behalf of the respondent, it l,V8S contended that the award being B given by the Collector on 10.6.1968 and by the reference Court on 30.8.l972 no benefit of the enhanced rate of interest introduced by the Land Acquisi- \r tion (Amendment) Act, 1984 can be given to the claimants. Allowing the appeal in part and referring the matter to a larger Bench with regard to the interest, this Court, c - HELD : (by the Court) : ~ (i) For the land falling in the four belts i.e. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the compensation ought to have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard uniformly as they are similarly circumstanced as Survey Nos. 1033, D 1034, and 1035. As regards the land falling in the fifth. belt, reasonable compensation should be Rs. 2,000 per acre. As regards the land falling in sixth belt measuring 661 acres 4 guntas, it is proved on record that the area consists. of hillocks and such the High court was correct in awarding )... the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per acre. [pp. 399 EF; 405 G] E (ii) The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 extends benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the --- Court is made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are F y rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that date. [pp. 401 F; 405 GH] Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,_ (1989) 2 SCC 754, followed. K Kamalajanimanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1985) 1 sec 582, referred to. G ~ Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737 and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh & Anr., (1986) 1 SCC 365, referred to as overruled. (iii) Since the Collector gave the award on 10.6.1968 and the court (Chief Judge, City Civil Court) on 30.8.1972 the claimants/appellants are H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A entitled to solatium at the rate of lS per cent only on the enhanced amount ~ of compensation. [pp. 4018; 402A; 40SGH 406A 407F] (iv) The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum up to 23.9.1984. [p.407 FJ B Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, followed. (v) There being disagreement with regard to the rate of interest to be allowed at 6 or 9 per centum per annum from 24.9.1984 till the actual ~ payment in the Court and also in respect of the direction that if su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.