LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U1~ION OF INDIA AND ORS v. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA NOVEMBER 30, 1989 B [K. JAGANNATH SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] c Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6, 23, 23( JA) and 30- Awards made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984- Entitlement to higher Solatium and additional amount under Section 23( JA)-Consideration of. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Government Gazette on 26.IO.I967, the State Government declared its intention to acquire the land of the Respon- dent on 23.2.I968. A notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette and on S.3.I969. The Land Acquisition Officer D declared award, determining compensation at the rate of 4 paise per square meter with solatium at IS per cent. At the instance of the respondent-claimant, a reference under section I8 of the Act was made to the Distt. Judge on May 28, I985. The Civil Court awarded compensation at Rs.3 per square meter and also awarded solatium at IS per cent and interest at 6 per cent from the date of taking possession of E the land by the State till payment of compensation. Being dissatisfied, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court seeking enhance- ment both of compensation and solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. The High Court allowed the appeal, and granted three reliefs viz; (I) Additional amount at the rate of I2 per cent of the market value F from the date of the notification under section 4 till the date of taking over possession; (2) interest at the rate of .9 percent for the first year from the date of taking possession and IS per cent for the subsequent years and (3) Solatium at 30 per cent on the market value. The appeilant has thus filed the instant appeal atler obtaining G Special Leave. There is no grievance as regards the interest awarded. The challenee relates to the grant of enhanced solatium and the additional amount of compensation. Appellants' contention is that sections 30(2) and 23(2) are not at all attracted and the claim of the Respondent on the H said two counts is not sustainable. 336 > U.0.I. v. FILIP TIAGO 337 Partly allowing the appeal, thiS Court, A HELD: Section 30(2) provides that the amended provisions of sec- tion 23(2) shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court between 30th April 1982 and 24th September 1984, or to an appellate order there- from passed by the High Court or Supreme Court. The purpose of these B provisions seems to be that the awards made in that interregnum must get higher solatium in as much as to awards made subsequent thereto. [343G-H] , If there is obvious anamoly in the application of law, the Court could shape the law to remove the anamoly. The Legislatures do not always deal with specific controversies which the Court decide. They incorporate general purpose behind the statutory words and it is for the Courts to decide specific cases. If a given case is .well within the general purpose of the legislature but not within the literal meaning of the statute, then the Court must strike the balance. So construing the Court held that benefit of higher solatium under section 23(2) should be avail- able also to the present case. [344A-C] In the instant case, on October 26, 1967, the notification under section 4 was issued. On March 5, 1969, the Collector made the award. ·The result is that on April 30, 1982 there was no proceeding pending before the Collector. Therefore Section 30, sub-section (l)(a) is ·not c D ·, attracted to the case. Since the proceedings for acquisition commenced E before 30th April 1982 Section 30, sub-section (l)(b) is also not applic- able to the case. The case is therefore really gone by both ways. The claimant is therefore not entitled to additional amount provided under Section 23(1A). [346E-F] The purpose of incorporating Transitional Provisions in any F Act or amendment is to clarify as to when and how the operative parts of the enactments are to take effect. The transitional provisions generally are intended to take care of the events during the period of transition. [343A] Kamalajammaniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, G [1985] 1 SCC 582; Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [1985] 3 SCC 737; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, [1986] 1 SCC 365; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 75
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.