SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 423

SURPEME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh, R.M. Sahai and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 706 of 1975
Decided On: 23.03.1995
Mir Fazeelath Hussain and others Appellants
Vs.
Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Hyderabad [OVERRULED] Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Prakash and Mr. S. Markandeya, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. T.V.S.N. Chari and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Advs.

Advocates:
D.PRAKASH REDDY, K.Madhava Reddy, NIKHIL NAYAR, S.Markandaya, T.V.S.N.Chari

The enhanced rate of interest under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, is not applicable to awards made before April 30, 1982.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 11, 23, 25, 26, 28 - AMENDMENT ACT, 1984 - SECTION 18 - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - ENHANCED RATE - APPLICABILITY - AWARDS MADE BEFORE APRIL 30, 1982 - NOT ENTITLED.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants challenged the fixation of market value by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which granted compensation on a belt-wise basis. The High Court's judgment was set aside in part by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, but the judges disagreed on whether the appellants were entitled to interest as enhanced by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the enhanced rate of interest as contemplated by Section 18 of the Amendment Act. The Court found that the appellants' case was not covered by Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, which provides for the application of the enhanced interest rate to awards made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. The Court also held that interest is not a part of the compensation and, therefore, not a part of the award. Thus, the ratio of Raghubir Singh's case, which dealt with the payment of solatium as enhanced by the Amendment Act, would apply to interest as well.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellants are entitled to interest as enhanced by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984? 2. Whether equity demands granting relief in question?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants' case was not covered by Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, which provides for the application of the enhanced interest rate to awards made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. 2. The Court also held that interest is not a part of the compensation and, therefore, not a part of the award. Thus, the ratio of Raghubir Singh's case, which dealt with the payment of solatium as enhanced by the Amendment Act, would apply to interest as well.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the enhanced rate of interest as contemplated by Section 18 of the Amendment Act. The Court also declined to grant relief on the grounds of equity.

ORDER

Hansaria, J.

1. A land acquisition proceeding which was initiated by issuing nolification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 25-4-1963 has brought the appellants fo this Court as they have felt dissatisfied with the fixation of a market value by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which granted compensation on belt-wise basis. The appeal came up for hearing before a two-Judge bench and by judgments dated May 15.1992 the appeal came to be allowed in part as indicated in the judgments. The two learned Judges, however, differed on the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to interest as enhanced by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act.1984 (for short, "the Amendment Act"). Kasliwal, J. took the view that despite what has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh.. enhanced rate of interest as visualised in the Amendment Act would be available to the appellants on a harmonious reading of the provisions, if the intention of the legislaturein enhancing the rate of interest is kept in view. Punchhi, J., however, was of the opinion that awarding of enhanced rate on the face of what was held in Raghubir Siughs case, would militate against the ratio of that case and would do violence to the statute. The learned Judges, therefore, while allowing the appeal in part and setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the extent indicated in the judgments, requested the Honblc Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench to resolve the disagreement with regard to the rate of interesi as, though the controversy is short, the same is likely to affect large number of cases. Hence, this appeal has come up for hearing by ihis bench.

2. The provisions of the Act which are relevant for our purpose arc Sections 11.23. 25,26 and 28, which may be noted at the threshold:-

"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.

(1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the dateof the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respeclive interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of:--

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-- (1) In determining the amount of compensaiion to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration:--

first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sab-section (I);

secondly, the damage sustained by the person interesied, by reason of the faking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors laking possession thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by person of severing such land from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land; by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and

sixthly, the damage





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top