THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 09-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
THE STA TE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
A VT AR SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 1'994--
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28-Proviso 
(As amended by Land Acquistion (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984)-
Applicability of 
In a land acquistion case the arbitrator awarded compensation on 
January 25, 1972. On reference the Additional District Judge, by his 
award dated 5th March, 1973 granted enhanced compensation with 
solatium and interest. The High Court disposed of the case on 
November 17, 1982 but subsequently, on claimant's application, 
.modified the decree, applied the Land Acquistion (Amendment) Act, 
1984 and granted benefit of higher solatium and interest. State of 
Punjab preferred appeal to this Court. · 
Allowing the appeal and setting asidflhe order of High Court, this 
Court 
HELD: The Land Acquistion Amendment Act 68/84 does not apply 
to an award made by the Civil Court prior to introduction of the Land 
Acquistion Amendment Bill. Section 28 proviso and Section 23 (2) as 
amended by Act 68/84 would apply to an award made by the Collector 
F 
or Civil Court between April 30, 1982 to September 24, 1984 and have 
no application to pending appeals in the High Court or Supreme Court. 
Equally section 23(1A) does not apply to a notification under section 
4(1) published prior to April 30, 1982. The claimants are, therefore, not 
entitled to the payment of solatium at 30% and interest at 9% and 15% 
respectively under section 23(2) of the Act and proviso to section 28 of 
G 
the Act on the enhanced compensation. Equally under section 28, of the 
Principal Act, claimant was entitled to only 6% interest on the 
enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession. In this case 
since lands were initially requisitioned and rent was paid till date of 
acquisition, the claimants are entitled to interest only from the date of 
H 
award by the Collector. [451H,452 A to CJ 
450 
..
STATE OF PB. v. AVTAR SINGH 
451 
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754 and K.S. A 
Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 593, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9462 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.87 of the Punjab and Haryana B 
High Court in R.A. No. 23.-Cil/87 D-B. 
Ranbir Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Appellant. 
A.T.M. Sampath and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
c 
Leave granted. 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
Originally land admeasuring 54 Kanals 11 Marlas was requistioned by D 
the Dist. Magistrate Amritsar by a Notification published on September 9, 
1946 for para-military purposes. Subsequently notification under S. 4 of the 
Land Acquistion Act was published by the State Government on dated June 
30, 1965. The arbitrator awarded the compensation on Janurary 25, 1972. 
On reference, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 30 per square yard by the 
award dated March 5, 1973 together with solatium at 15% and interest at E 
12% from the date of acquistion till payment was made on behalf of the 
State. The claimants F.A.O. No. 76/73 was disposed of by the High Court 
on November 17, 1982. Subsequently, an application was made under 
sections 152 and 15 l of C. P. C. requesting the High Court to amend the 
decree applying the Land Acquistion (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The F 
High Court allowed C.M. No. 2911-C/1986 on dated July 22, 1986 granting 
the benefits of 30% solatium instead of 15% solatium and also interest on 
9% for one. year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% 
after the expiry of one year till date of payment or deposit whichever is 
earlier. The order in First Appeal is accordingly modified. A Review 
Petition filed was also dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
G 
It is now settled law by this court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 
[1989] 2 SCC 754 and K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 SCC 
593, the L.A. Amendment Act 68/84 does not apply to an award made by 
the Civil Court prior to introduction of the L.A. Amendment Bill. Section 
28 proviso and section 23 (2) as amended by Act 68/84 would apply to an H 
A 
B 
c 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
award made by the Collector or Civil Court between April 30, 1982 to 
September 24, 1984 and have no application to pending appeals in the High 
Court or Supreme Court. Equally section 23(1A) does not apply to a 
notification under section 4(1) publi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.