UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. versus ZORA SINGH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 22-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER: ETC. ETC. 
v. 
ZORA SINGH ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 22, -1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H.KANIA AND 
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
C 
Land Acquisition Act, 
1894-Section 23(1-A)-Benefit 
under-Entitlement of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(1-A) 
"Award"-Construction-"Award" whether 'decree', "Court" whether 
"Collector". 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(1-A) read with Section 
D 30(l)(a) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984-Applicability 
of, 
E 
The lands of the respondent and other land owners were ac-
quired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published. 
on 10.5.1979 and 27.3.1981 respectively. · 
f 
The respondent and other land owners filed Reference Appli-
cations u/s 18 of the Act against the award before the District Judge. 
The District Judge classifying the acquired land into various 
F 
grades awarded compensation and also granted benefits u/s 23(1-A) 
of the Act to the respondent and other land Owners. Hence, the 
State appealed to the High Court. 
Those land-owners, who were not satisfied with the compensa-
tion awarded and those to whom benefit u/s 23(1-A) were not granted, 
G 
also appealed to the High Court. 
The Single Judge of the. High Court confirmed the grant of 
benefits u/s 23(1-A) of the Act and also granted such benefits to 
t~ose cases, whe~e such b~nefits were not given by the Dis.trict Judge. 
The State preferred th_e Letters Patent Appeals before the- Di-
vision ~erich of the High Court, contending that the respondent and 
478 
U.0.1. v. ZORA SINGH 
479 
other land o-WOers were not entitled to the benefit of section 23(1-A) 
A 
of thf Act; that the section 23(1-A) was introduced by the Land 
Acquisition(Amendment) Act, 1984; that as the Collector had made 
his award on 31.3.1981 the provisions of section 23(1-A) of the Act 
was not applicable to the cases of the respondent and other land 
owners. 
The--Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters 
Patent Appeals of the State. Hence the present appeals by special 
leave were filed by the State before this Court. 
B 
The parties before this Court made the same submissions which C 
were made before the High Court. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, (CA No.4568 of 1991) this Court, 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the provisions of sub-section(l-A) of 
section. 23 makes it clear that the said sub-section deals with sub-
D 
stantive rights and it confers a substantive right to claim the addi-
tional amount calculated as set out in the said sub-section in the 
circumstances set out therein. Similarly, sub-section(2) of Section 
23 also confers a substantive right on the claimant to a higher solatium . 
[486 E-F] 
2. The provisions of the Act, being substantive in nature, can 
have only prospective application unless the language in which the 
provisions are couched, read in the context, shows that the intention 
of the legislature was to give retrospective effect to them. The lan-
guage of sub-section(l-A) of section 23 shows that a duty is cast on 
• 
E 
the court to award an amount calculated as stated therein in addi-
F 
tion to the market value of the land acquired for the period com-
mencing from the date of the publication of section 4 of the Notifi-
cation to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking 
possession, whichever is earlier. (486 F-G] 
3. The expression "award" used in section 23(1-A) suggests 
G 
that the intention of the legislature was to make the provisions of 
the said sub-section applicable to cases where the Collector had yet 
to make his award or the Trial Court hearing the Reference under 
Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act has still to make its award 
after the coming into force of the said sub-section oil September 30, 
1984. [486 ff.,.487 A)_ 
. 
. . 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4. The expression "award" is to be distinguished from the 
expression "decree" and hence, it appears that in the absence of any 
contrary or inconsistent provision in the Act the provisions of sub-, 
section(l-A) of section 23 would not come into play where the awards 
had been made by the Collector earlier as well as by the Reference 
Court but on the date of coming into effect of the said sub-section, 
B 
an appeal from the said award might have been pending in a court. 
In that case, the court would not be "awarding" any amount but 
would be making a "decree" for an amount. [487 B-C] 
S. 
By reason of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.