STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus BETTY W/O L.J. MANI AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 17-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
A 
... -. 
v. 
BETTY W/O L.J. MANI AND ANR. 
JANUARY 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
"' 
Land Acquisition Act,"1894-Possession of the land not taken before 
.. 
30th Apri~ 1984-No entitlement or benefit under Section 28 or Section 31 of 
Amendment Act 68 of 1984. 
A notification under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, c 
1961, equivalent to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published on September 10, 1974. Possession of respondent's land was 
taken on March 20, 1977. Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation 
by an award and decree dated March 21, 1980. While dismissing the appeal 
of the State, the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 14.01.88 D 
applied the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and granted the statutory benefits 
under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to 
the respondents. 
Applicability of the statutory benefits under Act 68 of 1984 was called E 
in question in this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
.. ,.,,_ 
HELD : 1. The High Court would get jurisdiction to apply the 
amended Act 68 of 1984 only when it has enhanced the compensation or F 
only if the proceedings are pending either b~fore the Land Acquisition 
Officer or Civil Court before the introduction of the Act on 24.09.84. 
[359-G] 
2. If the possession of the land has been taken before 30th, 1984, i.e. 
when Act 68 came into force and the amount of compensation for such G 
acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31, the claimant 
,. -~. 
would be entitled to interest as contemplated under Section 34 of the 1984 
Act. Since the Land Acquisition Act was not applicable to the State of 
Kerala, the Amending Act would be applicable only from the date on which 
the Amending Act came into force, namely, September 24, 1984. Therefore, 
the respondents were not entitled to the benefits under Section 31 or 28 as H 
357 
-L
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A amended by Act 6~ of 1984. [359-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1421-22 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and. Order dated 14.1.88 of the Kerala High 
B Court in L.A.A. Nos. 242-43 of 1980. 
c 
M.T. George for the Appellants. 
G. Vishwanath Iyer, P. Kesava Pilli and T.G.N. Nair for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A notification under s.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, 
equivalent to s.4(1) of the Central Act was published on September 10, 
1974. The possession of the land was taken on March 20, 1977, obviously 
U :tfter making the award. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced 
the -compensation by his award and decree dated March 21, 1980. While 
dismissing the appeal of the State, the High Court by its judgment and 
decree dated January 14, 1988 applied the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 
and granted that ·statutory benefits under s.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the 
E Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in Act 68 of 1984. Thus this appeal 
by special leave confining to the 1uestion of applicability of the statutory 
benefits under Act 68 of 1984. 
It would be seen that the court under s.23(1) while enhancing the 
compensation has been given power under s.23(1-A) or 23(2), on an 
F application, to award the statutory benefits, in addition to the enhanced 
compensation. So, on the application made by the claimant, the court 
would not get jurisdiction to apply the amended Act 68/1984 except when 
it has enhanced the compensation. Even otherwise, it would apply only if 
proceedings were pending either before the Land Acquisition Officer or 
G before the civil court before the date when the Bill was introduced on 
30.4.82 or the Act came into force, i.e. 24.9.84. Then only the statutory 
benefits would be given on the enhanced compensation and not otherwise. 
Sri. G. Vishvanath Iyer, learned senior counsel for the claimants 
relied upon sub-s. (3) of s.30 of the Act and contended that since the 
H amount was not paid before possession was taken, the claimants are 
j 
, 
~-
.. 
" 
STATEOFKERALAv. BETTY 
359 
entitled to the payment of interest under clause (a) of sub-s (3) of s.30 A 
reads thus : 
"(a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the 
principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 198:2 
[the date of Introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment~ 
Bill, 1982, in the House of the People], and the amount of com-
B 
pensation for such acquisition had n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.