UMED INDUSTRIES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 17-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-A 
B 
UMED INDUSTRIES AND 
LANDDEVELOPMENT CO. AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959-Section 60- A-Transitory 
provisions for pending matters relating to acquisition of land-Amount of 
C compensation or interest or that payable for any other reason-Payable in 
accordance with provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Entitlement only 
from date of commencement of Act. 
The notification u/s 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 
1959 was published acquiring land for urban development. Possession of 
D the land was taken. The Additional Collector determined the market value. 
Appeal u/s 54 of the Act was filed by the claimants claiming additional 
1.. 
amount of compensation and also solatium and interest. The Government 
also filed appeals against the order of the Collector awarding 10% interest. 
The District Judge by his decree dated 9.2.1983 determined the compensa-
E tion and reduced the interest. Revision filed against this judgment was 
dismissed. This appeal had been filed agai~st the order made in revision. 
It was contended by the appellants that the provisions of Sec. 52(2) 
and 53(6) (a) were inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition 
(Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 amending the principal Land Acquisition Act 
F 
1 of 1984 and therefore the provisions of Sec. 52(2) and 53(6) (a) were void. 
G 
The appellants were not permitted to agitate this question as this conten· 
tion though raised before the District Judge was not pursued before the 
High Court. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A reading of transitory provisions in Sec. 60- A of the 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 would make the legislative ipten-
tion clear that any action taken, done or made under and in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act as it stood before the date of commencement 
H of the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984, such action, thing or order shall 
348 
UMED INDS. AND LAND DEV. CO. v. STATE OF RAJ. 
349 
not be reopened or reviewed or be liable to be challenged on the ground A 
that such action, thing or order was at variance with that provided in the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act l of 1894) subject, however, that 
any further proceeding, action or order in such matter conducted, taken 
or made on or after the date of commencement shall subject to the other 
provisions of this section, namely, section 60-A, be made under and ac-
cordance with the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-sec. (2) also makes the matter 
very clear; namely, the amount of compensation or interest or that payable 
for any other reason shall, in a matter pending on the date or commence. 
ment, be payable under and in accordance with the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act (Central Act) and the money paid prior to the date o( 
commencement shall be deducted from or adjusted against the said 
amount. It was applied to pending appeals. Thereby, it is amply clear that 
the amount of compensation or interest or that payable for any other 
reason (solatium under the Central Act) shall be in accordance with the 
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. But their entitlement will be only 
from the date of commencement of the Act but, not anterior thereto. 
(352-C-F] 
B 
c 
D 
1.2. Section 52(2) provides payment of simple interest at 6% per 
annum on the amount of compensation determined under sec. 53. Sec 
53(6)(a) specifically omits to pay solatium for compulsory acquisition. 
Thereby, prior to the commencement of the Central Act 68 of 1984, namely, E 
September 24, 1984, the claimants were not entitled to solatium. (353-G] 
1.3. Since the award was made by the District Court on 9.2.83 i.e. 
prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, the claimants were not 
entitled to solatium @ 30%. However, since the proceedings were pending, 
they were entitled to payment of solatium at 15% from the date of com-
F 
mencement of the Act, namely, 1-8-1987 till date of payment on the en-
hanced compensation awarded by the District Court. As regards interest 
till the State Amendment Act had been operating till 1.1.1987 the claimants 
were entitled to interest under the Central Amendment Act only on and 
from 1.9.87 on the enhanced market value for one year from 1.8.1987. G 
Therefore, after expiry of one year till date of payment or deposit, the 
claimants were entitled to interest at 15% on the enhanced compensation. 
[353-A-C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.