--
THE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA
v.
THE LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
MARCH 31,1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
A
B
_,-.
Section 23( 1-A) (As amended by 1984 Act)-iJenefits under Section
-
23( 1-A)-Applicability of
C
.
Relying on orders passed by this Court on October 29, 1987 in C.A.
No.174 and 602-605/82 it was contended in this appeal that the respon-
dents-ownershare entitled to the benefits provided under section 23 (l·A)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeal of Improvement Trust, the Court
HELD: Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides
that in addition to the compensation the owner is entitled to the payment
D
of 12% per annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of the
notification under Section 4(1) till date of passing award by the Collector E
or taking possession, whichever is earlier. This is independent of the
escalation of the solatium and interest provided under sub-s.(2) of Section
23, and Section 28 respectively. Therefore, what this Court meant in its
quoted order was escalation but not independent of the claims available
under section 23(1-A) since by then that question was pending adjudica-
F
lion before this Court. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the
benefits under section 23(1-A). (114-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4695 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2231 of 1995.
H.L. Srivastava, S.M.Rai and T.N.Singh for the Appellant.
G
Gopal Subramaniam, V. Ramswaroop, Vineet Maheshwari and R.K. H
113
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A Maheshwari Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Mr. Maheshwari, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.
B
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal
Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placed reliance
on the order passed by this Court in CA No.174 and 602- 605/82 dated
October 29,1987, wherein the counsel appearing for the appellant had
C conceded in those appeals that "the respondents have agreed that the
provisions of the amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided
therein would be available." Based thereon, it is contended by Sri Gopal
Subramaniam that it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that
the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided under section
D 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68/1984.
Section 23(1-A) provides that in addition to the compensation the owner
is entitled to the payment of 12% per annum of the enhanced compensa-
tion from the date of the notification under Section 4( 1) till date of passing
award by the Collector or taking possession, whichever is earlier. This is
E independent of the escalation of the solatium and interest provided under
sub-s (2) of Section 23, and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as
amended under Act 68 of 1984, respectively. Therefore, what was meant
by this Court in the above quoted direction is escalation but not inde-
pendent of the claims available under section 23(1-A) since by then that
question was pending adjudication before this Court.
F
Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the
benefits under section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act. It should accord-
ingly be deleted from the
award. It is needless to mention that the
respondents shall pay the balance amount as directed by this Court in the
G earlier order within a period of one month from today. The appeal is
allowed accordingly. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal Allowed.
Lex