Supreme Court of India
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSUMITRA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 392
- Decided
- 24 March 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The respondents are not entitled to solatium under Section 23(1‑A) nor to benefits under Section 28 because the Collector’s award predates the relevant transitional date and no compensation enhancement occurred.
Summary
The Karnal Improvement Trust appealed against a High Court order dismissing writ petitions that challenged a 1972 land acquisition award. The petitioners sought solatium (30% of market value) and other benefits under Sections 23(1‑A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court examined the effect of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which limits the applicability of Section 23(1‑A) to acquisition proceedings pending on 30 April 1982 where the Collector had not yet made an award, or to proceedings commenced after that date. Since the Collector’s award was made before that date and there was no enhancement of compensation by any court, the Court held that the respondents were not entitled to solatium or Section 28 benefits. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, confirming that no additional statutory amounts could be awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are entitled to solatium under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
- Whether the respondents can claim benefits under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when there was no enhancement of compensation beyond the Collector’s award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 26, s. 28, s. 54
- Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984s. 30(1), s. 30(2)
Subjects
Land acquisitionSolatiumSection 23(1‑A)Section 28Compensation enhancementTransitional provisionsAmendment Act 1984Supreme Court appeal
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 313
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST A
v.
SUMITRA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ·
(Civil Appeal Nb. 5782 of 2002)
MARCH 24, 2008
B
"'+ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss.23(1-A) and 28 -Award passed by Land Acquisition
Collector in 1972 - No enhancement of compensation in c
excess of the award passed by Collector - Entitlement to
solatium u/s.23(1-A) and benefits u/s.28 - Held: Not entitled
- Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - s.30(1).
Appellant filed writ petitions challenging award of
D
'~ . :y solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and other
amounts permissible under ss.23(1-A) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petitions were dismissed.
In appeal to this Court, the contention of Appellant is
that the benefits were not available because of the specific E
provisions of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984; that s.23(1-A) was not applicable
and further that since 'there was· no enhancement of
compensation in excess of the award of the Collector, the
benefits under Section 28 of the Act were also not F
).
applicable.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
.,
HELD: 1.1. Entitlement of additional amount provided
under Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of G
acquisition proceedings as on April 30, 1982 or
commencement of acquisition proceedings after that
-~ date. Section 30 sub-section (1 )(a) provides that additional
amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall be
313 H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R.
A applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the
Collector as on April 30, 1982 in which he has not made
the award before that date. If the Collector has made the
award before that date then, that additional amount cannot
be award.ed. Section 30, sub-section (1)(b) provides that
B Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition
proceedings commenced after April 30, 1982 irrespective
of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or
not before September .24, 1984. [Para 6] (317-8, C, D, E]
1.2. When the Civil Court on reference under Section
C 18, or the High Court or in some States District Judge
exercising appellate power under section 54 or civil court
under Section 26, as the case may be, awards
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the
Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to award
D a·dditional benefits envisaged in sub-section (I-A) of
section 23, sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 .. _
of the Act. In other words, enhancement of the
compensation in excess of the award of the collector
under Section 11 is a condition precedent to exercise the
E power to award statuto1')' additional amounts envisaged
under the aforesaid respective provisions on the excess
·compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal
confirming the award of the Collector or that of the civil·
court, then it has no jurisdiction and power to award
F additional statutory amount under the respective
provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of
1984. [Para 8] (318-G, 319-A, 8, CJ
1.3. From a readin~J of the orders passed by the
Reference Court it is clear that there was no enhancement
G c;>f the rates as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
That being so, benefits under Section 28 of the Act are ·
not available to the respondents. The award was passed
. on 7.11.1972. The Reference Court decided the case on ..... -
18.10.1997. That will not change the position because the
H relevant date is the date of award by the Collector under
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST v SUMITRA DEVI 315
(DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
the Act. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in A
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The
inevitable ~onclusion is that respondents are not entitled
to solatium under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and
similarly the benefits under Section 28 of the Act.
[Para 9] [319-D, E, F] B
..
.+ Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277; Kashiben Bhikabai and
Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2002)2 SCC
605 and The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Jagir Singh etc. (JT
1995 (9) SC 1) - relied on. c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5782 of 2002.
From the final Judgment and order dated 29/1/2002 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. D
-l' No. 6035/1998.
.->
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 5670, 5778, 5779, 5804 and 6566/
2002. E
Seeral Bagga and Sureshta Bagga for the Appellant.
Debasis Misra, G.K. Bansal and Ashu Bhatia for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J. 1. These appeals have an
identical point and are therefore disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Challenge in each case is to the final judgment and order G
dated 29.1.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant in each
-.._,; case were dismissed. Challenge in the Writ Petitions was to
the award of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and
other amounts permissible under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). According to ,.__
the appellant the benefits were not available to the respondents
because of the specific provisions of Section 30(1) of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short the 'Amendment
Act'). The High Court relying on some earlier judgments
s dismissed the writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view -+
of the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip
Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990 (1) SCC
277) and Kashiben Bhikabai and Ors. v. Special Land
C · Acquisition Officer and Anr (~002 (2) SCC 605) no amount
was payable as provisions of under Section 23(1-A) are not
applicable. Reference is also made to Section 30(1) of the
· Amendment Act for the purpose which reads as follows:
o· "30.Transitional provisions. - (1) The provisions of
subsection (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as
inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply,
and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in
relation to, -
E (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under
the principal Act pending on the 301h day of April, 1982
[the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People, in
whigh no award has been made by the Collector before
F that date;
(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under
the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or
not an award has been made by the Collector .before the
date of commencement of this Act.
G
(2) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(3) xxx xxx xxx."
4. It is pointed out that since there was no enhancement of
H c?mpensation in excess of the award of the Collector, the
I
I
I
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. SUMITRA DEVI 317
(DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-f benefits under Section 28 of the Act are also not applicable. A
Reliance is placed on The State of Punjab and Anr v. Jagir
Singh etc. (JT 1995 (9) SC 1) .
5. Learned counsel forthe respondents on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court.
.. 6. In Filip Tiago's case (supra) it was inter-alia observed
B
k
at para 21 as follows:
"Entitlement of additional amount provided under Section
23(1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition
proceedings as on April 30, 1982 or commencement of c
acquisition proceedings after that date. Section 30 sub-
section (1}(a) provides that additional amount provided
under Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to acquisition
proceedings pending before the Collector as on April 30,
1982 in which he has not made the award before that D
... ... date. If the Collector has made the award before that date
then, that additional amount cannot be awarded. Section
30, sub-section (1 )(b) provides that Section 23(1-A) shall
be applicable to every acquisition proceedings
commenced after April 30, 1982 irrespective of the fact E
whether the Collector has made an award or not before
September 24, 1984. The final point to note is that Section
30 sub-section (1) does not refer to court award and the
court award is used only in Section 30 sub-section (2)."
7. Similarly, in Kashiben's case (supra) it was observed F
as follows:
"17. Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that
the claimants would be entitled to an additional
compensation @ 12% as provided under Section 23(1-
G
A) of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted in view
of a Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Filip
--.J.
Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama which held
that additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of
the Act would not be available to a claimant in which the
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was
made by the Collector prior to 30-4-1982. If the Collector
made the award before 30-4-1982 then the additional
amount under Section 23(1-A) cannot be awarded. The
pendency of the acquisition proceedings on 30-4._ 1982
B before the Collector was essential for attracting the benefit •
under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It was held: (SCC pp.
286--87, para 21)
'21. Entitlement of additional amount provided under
Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of
c acquisition proceedings as on 30-4-1982 or
commencement of acquisition proceedings after that
date. Section 30 sub-section (1 )(a) provides that
additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A)
shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings
D pending before the Collector as on 30-4-1982 in
which he has not made the award before that date.
If the Collector has made the award before that date
-
then, that additional amount cannot be awarded.
Section 30 subs,ection (1)(b) provides that Section
E 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition
proceedings commenced after 30-4-1982
irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has
made an award or not before 24-9-1984. The final
pointto note is that Section 30 sub-section (1) does
F not refer to court award and the court award is used
only in Section 30 sub-section (2).'
No judgment taking a contrary view to the above-referred
case was cited before us. Accordingly, it is held that the
appellants would not be entitled to the additional
G compensation provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act."
8. In Jagir's case (supra) it was observed as follows:
>----
"It would thus be seen that the legislative animation is
clear that the Civil Court on reference under Section 18,
H or the High Court or in some States District Judge
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. SUMITRA DEVI 319
(DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
exercising appellate power under section 54 or civil court A
,•
under Section 26, as the case may be, awards
compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the
Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to award
additional benefits envisaged in sub-section (I-A) of section
23, sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the B
Act In other words, enhancement of the compensation in
excess of the award of the collector under Section 11 is
a condition precedent to exercise the power to award
statutory additional amounts envisaged under the aforesaid
respective provisions on the excess compensation. If the c
High Court dismisses t_he appeal confirming the award of
the Collector or that of the civil court, then it has no
jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory
amount under the respective provisions as amended under
the Amendment Act 68 of 1984."
D
• +' 9. From a reading of the orders passed by the Reference
Court it is clear that there was no enhancement of the rates as
fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. That being so, benefits
under Section 28 of the Act are not available to the respondents.
The award was passed on 7.11.1972. The Reference Court E
decided the case on 18. 10. 1997. That will not change the
position because as. noted in Filip Tiago's case (supra) the
relevant date is the date of award by the Collector under the
Act The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in dismissing
the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The inevitable conclusion F
is that respondents are not entitled to solatium under Section
23(1-A) of the Act and similarly the benefits under Section 28 of
the Act.
10. The appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs.
G
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search