UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus GIANI

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 17-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 978 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
v. 
GIANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R DAVE, JJ.] 
DELA YILACHES : 
c 
Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal -
Held: the averments in the application do constitute sufficient 
cause for not preferring the appeals within time -There is a 
strong arguable case on behalf of the appellants, therefore, 
Court would decide the matter or merits by giving the 
0 
expression 'sufficient cause' a pragmatic justice oriented 
approach - Delay condoned - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 136. 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: · 
E 
Section 23 (1-A) as inserted by amendment Act 68 of 
1984- Compensation under- Held: Sub - s. (1-A) was made 
applicable to proceedings pending on or after 30.04.1982 -
In the instant case, land owners would not be entitled to get 
the benefit under Sub - s. (1-A) as the proceedings had 
F 
culminated in passing the award by the Collector on 
09.07.1980 i.e. before 30.04.1982, the date from which the 
amendment was made applicable to pending and subsequent 
proceedings. 
The Union of India filed the instant appeals, though 
G after considerable delay, contending that the respondent 
land-owners were not entitled to receive compensation 
u/s. 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897, which was 
granted in their favour by the High Court. 
H 
978 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. v. GIANI 
979 
Partly allowing the appeals the Court, 
HELD : 1.1. The application for condonation of delay 
in preferring the appeals must be allowed as the · 
statements in the applications for condonation of delay, 
A 
do constitute sufficient cause in not preferring the 
8 
appeals within the period of limitation. There is a strong 
arguable case on behalf of the appellants and, therefore, 
it is felt necessary that the Court should decide the matter 
on merit by giving the expression 'sufficient cause' a 
pragmatic justice oriented approach. Therefore, delay in C 
all the appeals is condoned. [para 3) {981-A-C] 
2. Section 23 (1-A) was inserted in the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 w.e.f., 24.9.1984 by way of 
amendment to the Act by Act 68 of 1984, which was made 
applicable to proceedings pending on or after 30.04.1982. 
D 
The said sub-s.(1A) provides that in addition to the market 
value of the land, the Court would in every case award 
an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per 
annum on such market value for the period commencing 
on and from the date of the publication of the notification 
E 
u/s. 4(1 ), in respect of such land to the date of the award 
of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the 
land, whichever is earlier. In sub-s.(2) of s. 23 of the Act, 
the words "thirty per centum" replaced the words "fifteen 
per centum", w.e.f., 24.09.1984 and it was also made 
F 
applicable to certain awards made and order passed after 
30.04.1982. [para 6) [981-G-H; 982-A-B] 
K. s. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a and others 1994 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 405 = 
(1994) 5 sec 593 and Pralhad and 
Others v. State of Maharashtra and another 201 O (11 ) G 
SCR 916 = (201 O) 1 o sec 458 - relied on. 
2.2. In the instant case, the acquisition proceeding 
commenced with the notification u/s. 4 issued on 
06.03.1965 and it culminated in passing of the award by 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A the Collector on 09.07.1980, i.e., before 30.04.1982, the 
date from which the amending Act 68 of 1984 was made 
applicable to the pending and subsequent proceedings. 
Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the 
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of K.S. 
B Paripoornan, the respondents are not entitled to the 
benefit of s. 23(1A). [para 8) [983-H; 984-A-B] 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
·1994 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 405 relied on 
2010 (11 ) SCR 916 
relied on 
para 6 
para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1884 of 2011. 
0 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.5.2002 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 465 of 1986. 
E 
F 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1887, 1885, 1886 of 2011. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Brijender Chahar, Rekha Pandey, M. 
P.S. Tomar, Anil Katiyar for the Appellant. 
K.L. Janjani, Raj Singh Rana, Pankaj Kumar Singh, A. 
~ain, Dr. Vinod Tewari, P.P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted in all 
the petitions. 
G 
2. We propose to dispose of all these appeals by this 
H 
common judgment and order. In
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.