LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus RAGHUBIR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. MAY 16, 1989 B [R.S. PATHAK CJ, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, RANGANATH MISRA AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894: Sections 30(2) and 15-Solatium payable under Section 23(2) increased to 30 per cent- C Amending Section-Whether applicable to awards inade prior to April 30, 1982. Held applies to awards made by the Collector or Court bet- ween April 30, 1982 and Sept. 1984 and not before-Benefit extends to appeals taken from such awards only. Constitution of India-Articles 145, 137 and 141-Decision of a D Division Bench rendered earlier in point of time-Whether binding on a subsequent Division Bench comprised of equal number of Judges or of more Judges. E A common question of law having arisen in this group of cases for determination by this Court, they were heard together. Lands of Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 2839-40 of 1989 were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made the award for compensation on March 30, 1963 and on a reference, being made under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation by his order dated June IO, 1968. The I ->.._ F Respondents appealed to the High Court seeking further enhancement. -J: During the pendency of the appeal, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982 · was introduced on April 30, 1982 and became an Act on Sept. 24, 1984. The High Court disposed of the appeal on Dec. 4, 1984 and apart from raising the quantum of compensation, also awarded a solatium at 30 per cent in terms of the Amendment Act 1984. The State appealed to this G Court. The matter initially came up before ll Division Bench on Septem- ber 23, 1985. The Bench had before it two decisions of this Court wherein divergent views were expressed. The two decisions were: In H K. Kamalajammanniavaru's (dead) by Lrs. v. Special Land 316 U.0.1. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH 317 Acquisition Officer,, (1985] 1SCC582. This Court (composed of.two Judges) took the view that award of 30 per ceut solatium under the amende«! Section 23(2) by the High Court or the Supreme Court were applicable only where the award appealed against was made by the Collector or the Court between April 3(\, 1982 and Sept. 24, 1984. In the second decision, Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985] 3 SCC 737, this Court (comprised of three Judges) took a contrary view and ruled that even if an award was made by the Collector or the Court on or before April 30, 1982 and an appeal against such award was pending b·efore the 'High Court or this Court on 30.4.1982 or was filed subsequent to that date, the provisions of amended Section 23(2) anq 28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable as the appeal was a continuation of the refer- ence made under Section 18 and as such the appellate Court must apply the amended provision on the date of the decision of the appeal. In this way the decision in Kamalajammanniavaru's case was overruled by this Court in Bhag Singh's case and the Court approved another decision of Division Bench comprised of three Judges in Mohinder Singh's case (1986) 1, SCC 365 which merely directed payment of enhanced solatium and interest without giving any reasons. In view of the conflicting decisions on the point of two Judges Bench before, whom these cases come up for consideration, referred to this Larger Bench the question: whether under the Amended Section 23(2), the claimants were entitled to solatium at 30 per cent of the market value irrespective of the dates on which the land acquisition proceedings were initiated or on the dates on which the award had been passed. Overruling the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the reference of matters to a larger Bench, this Court disposing or the reference and directing that the appeals be now listed for hearing on merits, HELD: Solatium is awarded under sub-section (2) of Seeton 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Amendment Act was enacted, the Sub-section provided for solatium at 15 per cent of the market value. By the change introduced by the Amendment Act the amount has been raised to 30 per cent of the market value. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act specifies the category of cases to which the amended rate ofsolatium is attracted. [322D] A B c D E F G H A 318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 3 S.C.R. What Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.