LexPRALHAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 11 S.C.R. 916 PRALHAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.1745-53 of 2004) SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23(1A) - Enhancement of compensation - Amendment made in the Act in 1984 - C Amended provision of s. 23(1 A) provided for additional benefits to landowners - Such amendment made applicable to every pending acquisition proceeding under the Act as on 30-04-1982- Entitlement of appellants-land owners to benefit of s.23(1A) - Held: On fa'cts, the acquisition proceedings D which affected the appel/ahts~landowners commenced with notification ul s.4, which is dated 5-3-1983 and the award was passed on 1-3-1984 - Therefore, the appellants-landowners were entitled to benefit of the amending provision uls.23(1A) - High Court ought to have granted such benefit to the E landowners on the basis of their application under 0.41, r.33 CPC notwithstanding the fact that they did not file any appeal before the High Court from the order of the Reference Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 41 r. 33 - Scope, purpose and ambit of F Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on the High Court under Art. 141 and the High Court is bound to follow the same. The land belonging to appellants-landlowners was G acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award. Aggrieved, the landowners filed a Reference application under Section 18 of Act for enhancement of compensation. Meanwhile, the Act was amended and benefit was given to the H 916 PRALHAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 917 . AND ANR. landowners under the amended provision i.e. Section A 23(1A) of the Act. The amendment was made applicable to every pending acquisition proceeding under the Act on 30-04-1982. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The State Government challenged the award of the Reference Court in the High Court. The landowners did not file any appeal or cross-objections against the judgment of the Reference Court, but filed applications under Order 41, rule 33 CPC. The basic issue before the High Court was whether B c in absence of an appeal or cross-objection from the claimants, additional benefits could be granted to the appellants as provided in Section 23(1A) of the Act. The High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to award D additional benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Act and confirmed the award of the Reference Court. Partly allowing the instant appeals, the Court HELD:1. In the instant case, the acquisition proceeding commenced with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is dated 5.3.1983 and the award was passed on 1.3.1984. Therefore, the appellants-landowners who were affected by the instant acquisition proceeding were entitled to the benefit of the amending provision under Section 23(1A). [Para 16] [924-A-B] E F K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a and others (1994) 5 sec 593 and Prem Chand and others vs. Union of India AIR G 2010 SC 1308 - relied on. Union of India v. Zora Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 673 - referred to. H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A 2. The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the B case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any Order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression 'Order ought to have been made' would c obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying 'the court may pass such further or other Order as the case may require.' This expression 'case' would mean the justice 0 of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. [Para 17] [924-D-G] Vanarsi v. Ramphal, AIR 2004 SC 1989 and Samundra Devi and others v. Narendra Kaur and others (2008) 9 SCC E 100 - referred to. Mui/a CPC, 15th Edition, pg. 2647 - referred to. Case Law Reference: F (1994) s sec 593 relied on Para 11 (1992) 1 sec 673
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.