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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Satpal Singh Ahluwalia, S/o.Late Santokh Singh Ahluwalia – Respondent
WA No. 1952 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 14254 OF 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General assisted by Ms.Rita Chadrasekar and Mr.V.Kalyanaraman for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For the Respondent: Mr.V. Prakash, Senior Counsel, for Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth, Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader

Amendments to an existing land acquisition award do not create a new award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 - Section 24(1)(a) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court addressed the applicability of the new legislation when a prior award had been issued under the old act, clarifying that amendments to the award do not create a new award. The writ order conflicted with the interpretation of awards under the earlier legislation. (Paras 1, 9, 14)

(B) The amendment to the original award merely corrected the interest payment period, and did not constitute a fresh award. (Paras 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contended that compensation was finalized and paid based on an award from 31.07.2012, which predated the new act, while the respondents argued for recalculation under the latest statute.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside as it contradicted Section 24(1)(a) of the new Act, with the original award's date retained for reference.

Issues: Whether the amended order constituted a fresh award under the new act, versus maintaining the effectiveness of the original award.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that correction of interest does not alter the original award’s significance or instate new compensation discussions under the 2013 Act.

Result: Writ appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

The order under assail is dated 25.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.15495 of 2015. The 4th respondent in the writ petition Power Grid Corporation of India filed the present intra Court appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent mainly on the ground that the impugned writ order as well as the directions issued would fall beyond the scope of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (Act 30 of 2013).

2. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant would mainly contend that, the acquisition proceedings commenced on 07.09.2011 and after following the procedures as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act of the year 1894, an award came to be passed on 31.07.2012 under Section 11 of the old . After passing an award on 31.07.2012, notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued. The land owners received the compensation. The first respondent / writ petitioner, in response through his letter dated 16.08.2012, authorised one Mr.M.Sivakumar to receive the compensation amount and he has received the compensation. Possession was taken and the land has been utilised for public purpose.

3. Subsequently, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 to the Sub-Court, Vellore in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2015. Before the LA.O.P. Court, it was contended that the interest due to the land owners was calculated from 15.09.2011 to 25.05.2012, however the land owners are entitled to get interest till 31.07.2012. The mistake identified, was rectified by issuing an amended order by the Land Acquisition Officer in proceedings dated 30.05.2014. Consequently, 9% interest from 26.05.2012 to 31.07.2012 was added along with the compensation initially granted in the award dated 31.07.2012 and a total compensation of Rs.8,13,723/- was determined.

4. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan would contend that a plain reading of Section 24(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that, where no award under Section 11of the oldLand Acquisition Act1894 has been made, then alone the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 would apply. In the present case, the land acquisition proceedings concluded by affording opportunity to the land owners and award came to be passed on 31.07.2012 and the proceedings dated 30.05.2014 is only an amendment carried out to grant interest till 31.07.2012. Interest was calculated for the left out period of about four months and therefore the new Act will not apply and thus, the Writ Court has committed an error in directing the Sub Court to determine the compensation under Act 30 of 2013.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would oppose by stating that, the term "award" is to be interpreted that an award in all respects must be complete under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, an error was identified in the original award dated 31.07.2012 and an amended order was passed in proceedings dated 30.05.2014. Thus, the award is to be construed as a complete award within the meaning of Act 1894 taking note of the later proceedings dated 30.05.2014 and thus the Writ Court is right in arriving at the decision. It is to be construed that the amended order dated 30.05.2014 as a fresh and only award under the Act and thus the present appeal is to be rejected.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash would rely on the following judgments to establish that the original award dated 31.07.2012 cannot be construed as an ‘award’ within the meaning ofSection 11of the Act, 1894. .

Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211

Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another . (1988) 3 SCC 751

Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation vs. Supai Munda and Others . (1996) 4 S.C.C.533.

Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020)

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