Supreme Court of India

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMARUTI LAXMAN

Citation: 1996 INSC 523
Decided: 15 April 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

Compensation awarded before the 1984 amendment cannot be enhanced under its provisions, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to award such benefits without a proper appeal.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a High Court order that had granted enhanced compensation to Maruti Laxman under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The original acquisition notice was issued in 1969 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,000 per acre in 1972. A civil court enhanced this award to Rs.2,000 per acre in 1977, well before the 1984 amendment came into force. The High Court, in 1986, further increased the compensation by invoking sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1‑A) of the amendment, despite the claimants not filing an appeal for additional enhancement. The Supreme Court held that because the civil court's award pre‑dated the amendment, the claimants were not entitled to the enhanced benefits, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to award them. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's order was set aside without costs.

Issues considered

Whether compensation awarded before the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 can be enhanced under the amendment provisions.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to award additional benefits when the claimants had not appealed for further enhancement.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation enhancementAmendment Act 1984JurisdictionAppellate jurisdictionSpecial leaveSolatiumInterest

Judgment

                                                                                    '

A                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                   v.
                            MARUTI LAXMAN

                                  APRIL 15, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAlK, .JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

           Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1-Aj-Award of enhanced benefits under the
    provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984---Held, award made long before
C   the date of Introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984--Hence claimants
    not entitled to the enhanced benefits-Since claimants did not file appeal for
    further enhancement, High Cowt had no jurisdiction to award the same.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 7490 of
D 1996.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.86 of the Bombay High
    Court in F.A. No. 647 of 1977.

          D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellants.
E         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Though notice was served on the respondent, on one appears on
    behalf of him.

          Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
F
          Notification nnder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 31, 1969. The Land Acquisition
    officer made his award on October 12, 1972 awarding compensation 0) Rs.
    1,000 per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation
G   to Rs. 2,000 per acre by award and decree dated February 18, 1977. The
    High Court while dismissing the State appeal on July 16, 1986 has awarded
    the enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Thus this
    appeal by special leave.

          This appeal is only in respect of awarding of enhanced benefits under
H Sections 23(2), 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Act. In view of the settled legal
                                         324
                      STATE v. MARUTI LAXMAN                             325

position that the award of the civil Court was made long before the date A
of the· introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the claimant is not
entitled to the enhanced benefits. That apart, it is also settled legal position
that the High Court, while dismissing the appellant's appeal, had no
jurisdiction to award the additional benefits since the claimants did not file
any appeal for further enhancement. Therefore, in the absence of any
                                                                                 B
additional compensation being awarded, the High Court has no jurisdiction
to award the benefits under the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of
1984.

     The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
awarding solatium, interest and additional amount under Section 23(2), 28       C
and 23 (1-A) stands set aside. No costs.

G.N.                                                        Appeal 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