S.A. JAIN COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGING SOCIETY versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.A. JAIN COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGING SOCIETY 
v. 
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Ss. 4, 6, 23( 1-A)-Compensation-Award of-Market value of Ian~ 
C Determination of-Solatiwn and interesH:leld justified-Acquisition 
'-i 
proceedings started as early 15.5.68, the award of the Collector was on 29.2. 70 
and possession of the land was taken thereafter--All events happened long 
before the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984-Hence claimant not 
entitled to the benefit of S.23( 1-A). 
D 
The appellant Society is running educational and charitable institu-
E 
tions. The Society acquired certain land belonging to the second respon-
dent for providing a playground to one of its Colleges. Compensation was 
awarded to the second respondent @ Rs. 12,000 per acre anc! Rs. 1000 as 
price of well apart from 15% solatium and 6% interest from date of 
notification to date of award. 
The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation @ Re. 1 per 
·sq. yard for the entire land and further interest @ 6% from date of 
notification till the additional amount was paid to the claimant. 
On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 8 per 
F sq. yard, 30% of the market value as solatium along with 12% of such 
market value from date of notification till taking possession and interest 
at 9% for the first year and at 15% till payment of compensation. The 
Division Bench declined to interfere. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The land acquired possessed all characteristics of a 
potential building site for both residential as also commercial or industrial. 
purposes and it was near to other buildings and establishments. Consider-
ing the totality of the circumstances and other relevant particulars, the 
H Single Judge noticed that the rate of land in the locality had gone up to 
316 
-l 
\ 
SAJAINCOL1EGE1RUST v. STAIB 
317 
Rs. 9 per sq. yard in 1967 and has still gone up to Rs. 11 per sq. yard in A 
1970 and 1971, and fixed the market value for the land acqiuired at Rs. 8 
per sq. yard. Considering the importance of the locality, the potential of 
the land, and the user to which it can be put, the fixation of the market 
value of the land acquired at Rs. 8 per sq. yard is reasonable and the 
Division Bench in appeal did not rightly interfere with the above deter-
B 
mination. [319-C-E] 
2.1. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 
1984) became law on 24th September, 1984. The appeal filed by the claimant 
I 
was pending before the Single Judge of the High Court on the day when the 
",J/ 
1 
Amendment Act came inlo> force and he delivered the Judgment on C 
25.10.1985. So the award of 30% solatium on the market value of the land 
acquired is justified. Similarly the award of interest on excess compensa-
tion fixed by the Court at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of 
taking possession, and thereafter at 15% till the date of payment of the 
compensation for the land acquired, is equally justified. But the amount of 
12% per annum awarded on the market value from the date of publication D 
of the Notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of taking posses-
sion of the land, awarded as per section 23(1-A), is not legally justified. In 
this case, the proceedings for land acquisition commenced as early as 
15.5.1968 and the award was made by the Collector on 29.2.1970, and the 
possession of the land was taken immediately thereafter. All such events E 
happened long before the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984. In 
such cases the claimants are not entitled to the benefit under section 23 
(l·A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Amendment Act 68 of 
1984). [319-F-H, 320·A·B] 
2.2. Accordingly, the' claimant is not entitled to the benefit of section F 
23(1-A) of the Act award of an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per 
annum on the market value from the date •of publication of the notification 
under section 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession of the land. 
Subject to this modification, the decision of the courts below are affirmed. 
£320-CJ G 
Union of India v. B. V. Saroja and Anr., (1995) 1 Scale ~09, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No; 3078 of 
1995. 
'I 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.86 of the Punjab & Har~aqa H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court in LP.A. No. 139 of 1986

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.