LexPANNA LAL GHOSH AND ORS. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PANNA LAL GHOSH AND ORS. v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS. DECEMBER 12, 2003 B [RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] Land Acquisition : Land Acquisition Ai:t, 1894 · C Sections 23(2) and 28-Solatium-Enhanced Rate-Claim for ben- efits under the Amendment Act of 1984-Award-made by Land Acquisition Collector in 1974-Reference pending in the Reference Court between 301411982 and 29/9/84~Award passed by Reference Court in 1985- Claim for enhanced· rate-Held, Supreme Court having widened the D restricted interpretation given to the Amending Act, the appellants are entitled to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under Section 23(2) of the Act. Solatum-Held, is mandatory and cannot be done away with- Contention that Section 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Development and E Planning Act, 1948 excludes compensation by way of solatium, does not hold good-Deprivation of solatium by the Act having been held by Courts to be invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India-West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948-Section 8(2)-Con- stitution of India, 1950-Article 14. F Compensation-Enhancement of-Claim based on an award in an- other acquisition proceedings in respect of land situate near the lands of appellants-High Court dismissing the claim holding the two lands not being proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality-Held, High Court was right in not relying on the said document and disallowing the G claim for enhancement for compensation. Certain lands of the claimants-appellants were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award in 1974 awarding Rs. 12,000 per acre for 'nal land,. and Rs. 9000 per acre for 'chara' land. The reference court by its award passed H in 1985 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 36,00D per acre and also 740 P.L. GHOSH v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 741 granted 15% solatium and interest under Section 23(2} of the Act. The A land owners filed appeal before High Court claiming benefits under Section 23(2) of the Act as also for· further enhancement of comp.en- sation, and in support of their claim for enhancement; they produced certified copy of an· award in another acquisition proceedings in respect of land, which was 150 ft. away from their lands a.nd wherein B Rs. 1 lakh per acre had been awarded as compensation. The High Court did not rely on this document and ·the claim for enhancement· was dismissed and appellants were also denied the benefits under Section 23(2) of the Act. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the respondents, it was co.ntended that solatium was C not applicable because the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act; 1948, under which the area in question fell, did not contemplate it. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court D HELD : 1.1. The compensation @36,000 per acre as awarded by the L.A. Judge is upheld. The appellants are entitled to enhanced solatium @30% under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an interest@ 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Act. The High Court in considering the case under Section 23(1-A) of the Act has E committed an error. The reference by the High Court to Section 23(1· A) is irrelevant in the present case. The main aspect that arises for consideration is the rate of solatium. By an amendment in 1984, the rate was increased to 30% from the original 15% by virtue of Section · 30(2) of the Amending Act. This increase was given· a limited• F retrospectivity, in the sense that, the Amending Act, under Section· 30(2) provided that the increased solatium is applicable to those awards passed by the Collector or the Court between 30.4.1982 and. 29.9.1984. The award was made by the L.A. Collector in 1974. However; during the period between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984t the reference was pending in the Reference Court which passed its award G in 1985. Therefore, the issue is whether the amendmentwould apply to a case pending during the period of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to 29.9.1984. It has been held by this Court that the enhanced solatium would apply even to a case pending at the time the Act came into force. Thus, the benefit of enhanced solatium would extend to the present H 742 SUJ;>REME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A case. (746-E, 746-B-C; 744-G; 745-A-B; 745-G-HI B K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1995) SC 1012; Union of Indian v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2SCC 754 and Union of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.