A
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
SMT. KAMLA AND ORS.
APRIL 30, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 11, 18, 23(1-A) 23(2), 28 and 54-Additional compensation
C under S. 23( 1-A)-C/aimants not entitled to when the award proceedings have
been concluded prior to the introduction of the Amendment Act of 198.f-&-
ecuting Court devoid of jurisdiction and power to award additional amount
of compensation or enhance interest in executi01r-The Court gets power and
jurisdiction on reference when it enhances compensation-Or on appeal
under S. 54 when it enhances compensation to award additional amount of
D compensation or so/atium or interest under the Amendment Act of 1984.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8802 of
1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 3318 of 1992.
F
G
Ms. Kavita Walia and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant.
Dr. Suma! Singh and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No. 3319 of 1992
dated January 21, 1993,
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisiiion Act, 1894
H (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published on
106
ST ATE v. KMILA
107
Nove111ber 4, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector in his a\vard n1ade
under Section 11 of the Act on October 28, 1981 awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondents
filed application under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District
.Judge by his award and decree dated April 6, 1.985 awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs. 18 per square yard. The respondents levied execution
regarding recovery of the amount on October 12, 1992. The District .Judge
by his order dated .July, 18, 1992 awarded additional amount under Section
23(1-A) of the Act and also enhanced the interest under Section 28 o[ the
Act at the rate of 9 per cent per annwn for the first year and 15 per cent
per annum thereafter till the date of realisation. The appellant carried the
matter in revision but the High Court dismissed the revision. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
It has been well-settled legal position that the claimant is not entitled
A
B
c
to payment of additional amount of compensation under section 23(1-A)
when the award proceedings have been concluded long prior to the intro-
duction o[ the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is settled by catena of D
decisions of this Court that the executing Court is devoid of jurisdiction
and power to award additional amount of compensation or to enhance the
in~erest in execution. The Court gets po\ver and jurisdiction on reference
\Vhen it enhances compensation or on appeal under Section 54 enhances
the compensation to a\var<l additional amount of compensation under
Section 23(1-A) or solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) or interest under
Section 28 under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The executing Court,
therefore, travelled beyond its jurisdiction to award additional amount
under Section 23(1-A) and also interest under Section 28 of the Act. The
High Court \Vas, therefore, in clear error in dismissing the civil revision.
The amended decree of the execution Court stands set ·aside.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
E
F
Lex