THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC. versus BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 28-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
A 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
....... 
I• • 
BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Enhanced 
solatium, interest and additional amount-Payment of. 
---). 
c 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
y 
was published in the State Gazette on 11.12.1974 acquiring a large extent 
...,• 
of land for publk purposes. The compensation awarded by the Collector 
under section 11 was enhanced on reference. On appeal a Single Judge 
further enhanced the compensation. The L.P .A. and S.L.P. against the 
same were also dismissed. 
D 
Subsequently some appeals were disposed of by the High Court and 
applications were filed under Sections 151 and 152 for amending the decree 
y 
for awarding the benefit of enhanced solatium, interest and additional 
amount available under Sections 23(l·A), 23(2), and 28 of the 1984 Act as 
E 
amended by Act 68 of 1984. Not satisfied with the orders passed thereon 
by the High Court, the State preferred the present appeals. 
~ 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 The High Court acquires jurisdiction under S.54 of the 
F 
Land Acquisition Act against the enhanced compensation awarded by the 
~ 
reference court under S.18, under S.23(1) read with S.26 of the Act and 
not independently of the proceedings. (376-B-C] 
~-
1.2 The High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining 
the applications under Ss.151 and 152 to award the additional benefits 
G under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already 
~sposed of. [376-F] 
2. The High Court should have allowed solatium at 15% and interest 
>-
at 6%. Payment of additional amount as contemplated under Section 
23(1·A) cannot be made since the notification under Section 4(1) was dated 
H 11.12.1974 and the Award of the District Judge was dated 23.02.1978. 
374 
5TAIBOFPB. v. B.SJNGH 
375 
Therefore the respondents were not entitled ~o additional benefits under A · 
Act 68 of 1984 or to an amendment of the d,·,;rees already disposed of. 
f 376-E] 
State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh, C.A. No. 1607/78, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 'l.287-95 B 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.88 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.M. Nos. 199, 364Cl/86, 356, 375, 334-Cl/86 362 
CI, 336, 335 CI/86 and 196/CI of 1986. 
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted 
After Shri R.B. Mehrotra was elevated to the Bench, notices have 
been sent to the respondents to make alternative arrangements. All the 
notices have been returned. In some cases the acknowledgements have.not 
been received. Thus, we deem that the notices have been duly served on 
c 
D 
the respondents. They do not appear to be interested after the law has been E 
settled by this Court and is against them. 
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 
'the Act'), was published in the State Gazette on 11.12.1974 acquiring large 
extent of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for 
public purpose. The Collector under s.11 made his award on 27.9.1976 F 
determining the compensation between Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 26, 7'}1) per acre. 
On reference, by decree dated 23.2.1978, the Addi. Dist. Judge enhanced 
the compensation varying between Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 40,000 per acre. On 
further appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation between Rs. 
40,000 and Rs. 50,000 per acre at flat rate by judgment dated 3.9.1980. The 
L.P.A. was dismissed on 27.4.1981. Thus, the proceedings were concluded G 
prior to the Amendment Act has come into force. Since the S.L.P. was 
dismissed on 5.9.1983 and some appeals were subsequently disposed of by 
the High Court, applications under s.151 and 152 were made in these 
matter for amending the decree or for awarding the benefits of enhanced 
solatium, interest and additional amount available under ss. 23 (1-A), 23(2), H 
376 
:, UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A 28 of the Act as arr .... nded by L.A. (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. Cal)jng 
in question the orders of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 
15.7.1988, these appeals by special leave have been filed. 
It is to be seen that the High Court acquires jurisdiction under s.54 
B against the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court under 
s.18, under s.23(1) with s.26 of the Act. The Court gets the j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.