Back
2010 (6) Supreme 709
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Pralhad & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra and another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1745-1753 of 2004
Decided on : 15-9-2010
(1994) 5 SCC 593 – Relied upon
(1992) 1 SCC 673 – Referred
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23(1A) – Acquisition proceeding commencing on 5.3.1983 – Award passed on 1.3.1984 – Land owners entitled to the benefit of the amending provision. (Para 16)
(1994) 5 SCC 593; AIR 2010 SC 1308 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, Rule 33 – Ambit and scope – This provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice between the parties – Limitations – This power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict. (Para 20)
AIR 2004 SC 1989; (2008) 9 SCC 100 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, Rule 33 r/w section 23(1), L.A. Act, 1894 – Law declared by Supreme Court in Paripoornan’s case is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution – Land owners have legal right to receive benefit under section 23(1) of the Act. (Para 21)
(1994) 5 SCC 593 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. Land was acquired and compensation was awarded.
2. After amendment in the L.A. Act, on reference, the compensation was enhanced and solatium was granted.
3. The State filed appeal against the enhancement and the land owners filed application under CPC for additional compensation.
4. High Court dismissed the appeal as well as the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The appellants are entitled to the benefit of the amended provision of Section 23 (1A) of the Principal Act.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J. —
1. The relevant facts common in these appeals are that a preliminary notification dated 5.03.1983 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Principal Act’) in respect of the land at Ghonga Tank in village Ghonga, Taluk Barshitakli, Akola, Nagpur. It was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Principal Act on 28.07.1983.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector passed his award on 1.03.1984, awarding Rs.3600/- per acre for the acquired lands. Landowners, being aggrieved, filed a Reference application under Section 18 of Act on 5.04.1984, for enhancement of compensation.
3. Meanwhile, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, being Act 68 of 1984 (hereinafter ‘the Amendment Act’) received the assent of the President on 24.09.1984 for amending the Principal Act. The amendment was made applicable to every pending proceeding for acquisition of any land under the Principal Act and which were pending on 30.04.1982.
4. On 25.04.1985, the Additional District Judge, Akola, in the Reference Proceeding enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,000/- per acre, with solatium at the rate of 30% as per the amendment and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of possession.
5. The State of Maharashtra challenged the award of the Reference Court in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur. The landowners did not file any appeal or cross-objections against the judgment of the Reference Court, but filed applications under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) claiming additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the award and interest at 9% p.a. on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and at the rate of 15% for the further period, in view of the amendment to the Principal Act.
6. The High Court, by judgment and order dated 9.02.1999, dismissed the appeals of the State of Maharashtra as well as the applications filed by the landowners under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC. The High Court relied on various judgments of this Court and held that it had no jurisdiction to award additional benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while confirming the award of the Reference Court.
7. The present appeals are filed by the landowners before this Court, challenging the dismissal of their application under Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC by the High Court.
8. The basic issue before the High Court was whether in absence of an appeal or cross- objection from the claimants, is it permissible to grant additional benefits to the appellants as provided in Section 23 (1A) of the Amendment Act?
9. The benefit which is given to the landowners under the amendment provision, which came by virtue of Section 15 of Act 68 of 1984, is now Section 23 (1A) of the Principal Act. Section 23 (1A) of the Principal Act runs as under:
“23(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation.- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
10. The benefit of the aforesaid amended provision to the landowners was provided by Section 30 (1) of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
