THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus JAGIR SINGH ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 30-10-1995 · 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 
B 
c 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
v . 
.JAGIR SINGH ETC. 
OCTOBER 30, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARJA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisitioll Act, 1894, as amended by LandAcquisitiol! (Amend-
mel!t) Act 68 of 1984. 
Ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28-Additional benefits-Held, if the High Cow1 
dismisses the appeal confinning the award of the Collector or that of the Civil 
Court, it has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory a1nount 
under respective provisions as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. 
The High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State 
D against the award dated 23.1978, passed by the reference Court, granted 
the land owners additional benefits under the provision of Land Acquisi· 
lion Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 
of 1984. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals by special leave. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Enhancement of the compensation in excess of the award 
of the Collector under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a 
condition precedent to exercise the power to award statutory additional 
amounts envisaged under the provisions of S.23(1-A), 23(2) and S.28 of 
F 
the Act on the excess compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal 
confirming the award of the Collector or that of the Civil Court, then it 
has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory amount under 
the respective provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 
1984. (554-D-E] 
G 
1.2 The High Court, therefore, has no power to award the statutory 
benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 while confirming the decree 
of the Reference Court. [554·H] 
Union of India v. Smt. Pratap (Kaur) through Lrs. & Allr. Etc., J.T. 
H 
(1995) 2 SC 569, State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, .J.T. 
552 
STATE v. JAG!R SINGH 
553 
(1995) 2 SC 583 and Tllc State of P1111jab & Anr. Etc. v. Babu Si11gh & Ors. 
A 
Etc., CA Nos. 3287-95/95 @ SLP (C) No. 2207-15 of 1979 decided on 
February 28, 1995, relied on. 
U11io11 of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754 and KS. 
Pmipoornan v. State of Kera/a, (1994] 5 SCC 593, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9911-12 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.88 of the Punjab & 
B 
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 555 and 869 of 1979. 
C 
G.K. Bansal for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Though respondents have been served, none is appearing. 
D 
Leave granted. 
The award of the Additional District Judge is dated March 2, 1978. 
When the State had gone in appeal against the award, while dismissing the 
appeals the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had granted E 
additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894. 
Sub-section (1) of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 
Act') envisages determination of the amount of compensation· to be 
awarded lo the acquired land. Sub-section (JA) envisages that "i11 addition" 
to the n1arket value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every F 
case award an amount calculated @ 12 per centum per annum on such 
market value for the period commencing on from the dale of the publica-
tion of the notification under S.4(1) to the date of the award of the 
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. 
Sub-section (2) also provides that "in addition" to the market value of the G 
land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30 
per centun1 on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature 
of acquisition. 
Section 28 envisages that if the sum which, in the opinion of the 
Court, the Collector ought lo have awarded as compensation is in excess H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, it enjoins the 
Court that the Collector 'shall pay mt such excess" compensation 
interest @ nine per ccnlum per annum from the date on which he took 
possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Cowt. 
Under the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court 
B 
after the date of expiry period of one year from the date on which 
possession is taken, interest @ 15 per centum per annum shall be payable 
from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of 
such excess. 
c 
It would thus be seen that the legislative animation is clear that the 
Civil Court on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.