Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 493

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 4695 of 1995(From the Judgment and Order dated 13-2-1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2231 of 1995},
Decided on 31-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
H.L. Srivastava, S.M. Rai and T.N. Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant;
Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate (V. Ramswaroop, Vineet Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.

Advocates:
GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, H.L.SRIVASTAVA, R.K.MAHESHWARI, S.M.RAI, T.N.Singh, V.RAM SWAROOP, VINIT MAHESHVARI

Interpretation of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and determination of entitlement to benefits under the provision.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Section 23(1-A) - Interpretation of provisions regarding enhanced compensation and entitlement of benefits under Section 23(1-A)
Fact of the Case:

The appellant contended that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and directed the respondents to pay the balance amount as directed by the court in the earlier order within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.
Issues: Interpretation of provisions under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and entitlement of benefits to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits under this provision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the balance amount as directed by the court in the earlier order within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. No costs were awarded.

ORDER

1. Mr Maheshwari, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in CAs Nos. 174 and 602-605 of 1982 dated 29-10-1987, wherein the counsel appearing for the appellant had conceded in those appeals that "the respondents have agreed that the provisions of the amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available". Based thereon, it is contended by Shri Gopal Subramanium that it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984. Section 23(1-A) provides that in addition to the compensation the owner is entitled to the payment of 12% per annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) till date of passing award by the Collector or taking possession, whichever is earlier. This is independent of the escalation of the solatium and interest provided under sub-section (2) of Section 23, and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, respectively. Therefore, what was meant by this Court in the above-quoted direction is escalation but not independent of the claims available under Section 23(1-A) since by then that question was pending adjudication before this Court.

4. Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act. It should accordingly be deleted from the award. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall pay the balance amount as directed by this Court in the earlier order within a period of one month from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 724

Click Here to Read the rest of this document