LexMIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN & ORS. versus SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J
)
r
MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN & ORS.
v.
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,
HYDERABAD
MARCH 23, 1995
[KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHAI AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
[And Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 28.
A
B
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984-Sections 18 and 30(2)-
C
Applicability of-Award made prior to 30.4.1982-Whether enhanced interest
can be granted.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 11, 23and 26-Award-Contents
of-Interest and solatium do not f onn part of the awart.f-Pri.nciples of
Equity-Applicability of-Does not apply in detennining the rate of interest.
D
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended by the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and the interest payable under
Section 28 was enhanced. By the same Amendment Act the rate of solatium
payable under Section 23(2) of the main Act was also enhanced. Section E
30(2) of the Amendment Act of 1984 made the enhanced interest and
solatium payable even in respect of awards of the Collector or the Court
made in between 30.4.1982 (the day on which the Amendment Bill was
introduced in the House of People) and 24.9.1984 (the date of commence-
ment of the. Amendment Act),
F
Interpreting Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act of 1984 in so far
as it related to solatium, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989) 2 SCC 754 held that under the
said section the benefit of enhanced solatium extends to case where the
award by the Collector of the Reference court was made between 30.4.1982
and 24.9.1984 or to appeals against such awards which were made between G
30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, decided by the High Court or this court whether
before or after 24.9.1984.
In the present case, the award of the Collector as well as the
Reference court ~
made prior to 30.4.1982. Even the order of the High H
985
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
A Court, by which the High Court had fixed compensation on belt-wise basis,
was pronounced on 24.5.1974. On appeal, this court partly allowed the
appeal but there was difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges
as to whether the appellants were entitlt!d to enhanced interest under
Section 18 of the Amending Act of 1984 in view of judgment of this Court
B · in Raghubir Singh 's case. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.
On behalf of the appellants it was argued that (1) Section 30(2) of
the Amendment Act deals with awards, and interest is not a part of award;
(2) Raghubir Singh's case dealt with payment of solatium and therefore
would not be applicable in cases of payment of interest; and (3) the
C appellants were not claiming enhanced interest retrospectively but from
the date of coming in force of Amendment Act (24.9.1984) and therefore,
Raghubir Singh's case would not.apply.
Answering the reference, this court J..
D
HELD : 1. That interest does not form part of award would appear
from a combined reading of Sections 11, 23, and 26 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The interest visualised by Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act
\
{
is not a part of the compensation, and so, not a part of the award. A
..J..-·
combined reading of the aforesaid s~ctions would show that solatium too
E . is not a part ·of the award inasmuch as sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 specifically states that the award shall specify
the amount awarded under each of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section
23, whereas solatium is dealt by Sub-section (2) of· Section 23. The
aforesaid being the position, what was stated in Raghubir Singh's case qua
solatium shall apply to interest also. [993-B, E-F]
F
Shree Vijay Cotton & Oils Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, [1991) 1 SCC
262; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989) 2 SCC 754 and KS.
Paripooran v. State of Kera/a, JT [1994) 6 SC 182, referred to.
G
2. The appellants are not entitled to enhanced rate of interest as
contemplated by Section 18 of the Amendment Act as the increase was
sought to be confined to the awards made between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984,
whereas the present award is anterior even to the starting point. [993-H,G)
3. Equity has no role when the question relates to rate of interest.
H Whether the rate of interest should be 6% or 9% is not a matter which
).__
/ ----
M.F. HUSSAIN v. DY. COLLECTOR [HANSARIA, J.)
987
would require invocation of Court's equitable jurisdiction. The same has A
to be governed by statutoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.