http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRESIDENT LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNALAND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (2) 526        1990 SCC  (2) 625  JT 1990 (2)   567        1990 SCALE  (1)94

ACT:     Land  Acquisition  Act, 1894 (As amended by  Act  68  of 1934):  Section  23(1-A)--Additional Benefit of  interest  @ 12 --Entitlement  to--Pendency  of  acquisition  proceedings before  Collector on 30th April, 1982 is  essential--Benefit is inapplicable to awards made before 30th April, 1982.     Section 23(2)--Enhanced solatium @ 30 --Held  applicable to  awards  made by Collector or Court between  30th  April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984.

HEADNOTE:     The lands of the respondents were acquired for a  scheme of the Appellant-Improvement Trust. The awards for compensa- tion  were  made by the Collector on 6th January,  1979  and 30th  April, 1982 and the reference was disposed of  by  the Land  Acquisition  Tribunal by its award dated  28th  March, 1983  and  29th August, 1985 by granting solatium @  15%  on compensation and interest @ 6% on excess compensation.     In  view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)  Act,  1984 the landowner-claimants made an application to the  Tribunal seeking  enhanced  solatium and interest under  the  amended provisions  of  Land  Acquisition Act,  1894.  The  Tribunal allowed  the application by granting higher solatium,  addi- tional benefit of interest and interest on excess  compensa- tion.     The  writ petitions filed by  the  Appellant-Improvement Trust against the decision of the Tribunal were dismissed. Hence these appeals by the Improvement Trust.     Allowing the appeal in part (C.A. No. 1894 of 1990)  and dismissing the connected appeals, this Court, HELD: 1. The benefit of higher solatium @ 30% under section 527 23(2)  of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is  applicable  to cases  of awards made by the Collector or the Court  between 30th  April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. In  the  instant case since the awards were made between the aforesaid  dates the  claimants have been rightly held entitled  to  enhanced solatium. [530E] Union  of  India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC  754,  fol- lowed.     2. Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition  (Amendment) Act,  1984  clearly provides that the additional  amount  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

interest provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisi- tion  Act, 1894 shall be applicable to acquisition  proceed- ings pending before the Collector as on 30th April, 1982  in which  he  has not made the award before that date.  If  the Collector has made the award before that date then addition- al amount Cannot be awarded. [531E]     2.1 The claimant in the Appeal (No. 1894 of 1990) is not entitled  to  additional benefit of interest  under  Section 23(1-A) because the award in this case was made long  before 30th April, 1982. But the claimant in the connected  appeals are entitled to this benefit since in their cases the awards were made on 30th April, 1982 itself. [531F; 532A]     Union  of  India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989]  2  SCC  745, explained and held inapplicable.     Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, J.T. 1989 4  S.C. 529, followed.     3. The award of interest on excess compensation is valid since the claimants were entitled to the same under  section 28 as it stood amended by the Amending Act. [530F]     4. The order of the High Court and the Land  Acquisition Tribunal  in  Civil  Appeal No. 1894 of  1990  is  therefore modified,  only to the extent that interest shah be  allowed at  the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per  annum.  The other  additional  benefits granted by  the  Tribunal  shall remain in tact. [532B-C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  Nos.  1894, 1895 & 1896 of 1990.     From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil W.P. Nos. 1778, 1776 & 1777 of 1989. 528 Balbir Singh Wasu, N.S. Das Bahl for the Appellant.     Har  Dev  Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for  the  Re- spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.     All these petitions by Special leave are disposed of  by one single order as identical questions of law are  involved and they are directed against the similar order of the  High Court dated 9th February, 1989.     Short controversy raised in these cases is regarding the grant of benefits under amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2)  and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the  Land Acquisition  (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred  to as the Amending Act). The President Land Acquisition  Tribu- nal, Hoshiarpur (District Court) initially granted  solatium at  15% on the compensation and interest at 6% per annum  on the  additional  amount  of compensation till  the  date  of payment. The claimants ’submitted an application for modifi- cation of the award as regards solatium and interest in view of the Amending Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984.  The Land Acquisition Tribunal granted benefit of  the Amending Act and modified the award by passing the following operative  order  which is subject matter  of  challenge  in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989. Similar orders have been passed in other two cases also. "Accordingly, I modify the award to the extent that solatium shah  be payable at the rate of 30% instead of  15%  granted earlier. Similarly, interest at the rate of 12% per annum is granted  from the date of notification under Section  42  of the  Punjab  Town Improvement Act, 1922, till  the  date  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

award  of the Collector, the date of possession of the  land which  ever is earlier. Further interest is awarded  at  the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of delivery of possession till the expiry of one year. Thereaf- ter  interest is awarded at the rate of 15% per  annum  from the  date of expiry of period of one year till payment.  The applicant  shall  be entitled to recover  the  solatium  and interest as per the modification indicated above ’ ’. 529     Aggrieved  against the above order, the  Hoshiarpur  Im- provement Trust has come before this Court.     In  order to decide the controversy, it would be  neces- sary  to mention some important dates in each of  the  above cases.     In Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 the award was given  by  the Land Acquisition Collector  on  6th  January, 1979.  On a reference the award was given by  the  President Land  Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur on 28th March,  1983. The  award  was modified by the President  Land  Acquisition Tribunal  by order dated 29th August, 1988. The  High  Court dismissed  the Writ Petition filed by the Improvement  Trust on 9th February, 1989.     In Special Leave Petition No. 9521 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th April, 1982. On  a  reference the award was given by the  President  Land Acquisition  Tribunal, Hoshiarpur on 29th August, 1985.  The President  Land Acquisition Tribunal modified the  award  by order  dated 29th August, 1988. The Writ Petition  filed  by the Improvement Trust was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February, 1989.     In  Special Leave Petition No. 10 130 of 1989 the  award was  given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th  April, 1982.  On a reference the award was given by  the  President Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur on 29th August,  1985. The  award  was modified by the President  Land  Acquisition Tribunal by order dated 14th September, 1988. Writ  Petition filed  by  the Improvement Trust was dismissed by  the  High Court on 9th February, 1989.     Learned  Counsel appearing on behalf of the  Improvement Trust contended that no benefit could have been given  under Section  23(1-A) which was inserted by the Amending Act.  It was contended that in a recent decision given by this  Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco  De Gama, JT 1989 4 SC 529 it has been held  that  the additional amount under Sec. 23(1-A) can only be allowed  in those  cases  where proceedings for the acquisition  of  any land under the Principal Act were pending on the 30th day of April,  1982 (the date of introduction of the Land  Acquisi- tion (Amendment) Bill 1982 in the House of People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then,  the additional  amount cannot be awarded. Thus it was  contended that the additional benefit of interest 530 at  the rate of 12% per annum from the date of  notification till  the award made by the Collector or the date of  taking over  possession which ever is earlier, is liable to be  set aside.     In  order  to appreciate the argument  advanced  by  the Learned  counsel  appearing for the  Improvement  Trust,  it would  be necessary to give a background of  some  important events  and decisions having a bearing on the question.  The Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as  the Principal  Act) was sought to be amended and in this  regard on 30th April, 1982, the Land Acquisition (Amendment)  Bill,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

1982  was introduced in Parliament. On 24th September,  1984 it became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984,  when it received assent of the President. Before  the amendment,  Section 23(2) of the Principal Act provided  for solatium at 15% on the market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. After amendment by Act 68  of 1984 solatium was raised to 30% on the  market  value under Section 23(2). A Constitution Bench in Union of  India &  Another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.rs. etc., [1989]  2 SCC 754, overruled; Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandi- garh,  [1985]  3  SCC 737 and State of  Punjab  v.  Mohinder Singh, [1986] 1 SCC 365 held that the higher solatium at the rate  of 30% would be given in cases of awards made  by  the Collector  or  the Court between 30th April, 1982  and  24th September,  1934. In the cases before us the claimants  have been  rightly held entitled to solatium at 30% applying  the ratio  in  the  case of Union of India &  Ors.  v.  Raghubir Singh, (supra).     So  far as the award of interest at the rate of  9%  for the  first year from the date of taking possession  and  15% for  the subsequent years is concerned, the  claimants  have been  rightly held entitled to the same under Section 28  as stood amended by the Amending Act.     Now, the only controversy which remains to be considered is  with regard to the additional benefit allowed by way  of rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of notifica- tion issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town  Improvement Act,  1922, till the date of award of the Collector  or  the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. It  is important  to  note that in the case of Union  of  India  v. Raghubir  Singh,  (supra)  the above  question  was  neither called  for consideration nor decided. In Union of  India  & Ors.  v.  Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem  Vasco  De  Gama, (supra)  the above question directly came up for  considera- tion  before this Court. It was held that the above  benefit has  been  provided  under the amended  Sections  23(i-A)  & 23(2). 531 The  Legislature has given new starting point for  operation of Section 23(1-A) for certain cases and it would be  deter- mined  from  Section  30(1)(a,) & (b)  of  the  Transitional Provisions which read as follows: Section 30: Transitional Provisions: (1) The provision of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of  the Principal  Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section  16  of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have  applied, also to, and in relation to: (a)  every proceeding for the acquisition of any land  under the  Principal  Act pending on the 30th day of  April,  1982 (the  date of introduction of the Land  Acquisition  (Amend- ment)  Bill  1982 in the House of the People), in  which  no award has been made by the Collector before that date. (b)  every proceeding for the acquisition of any land  under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or  not an  award has been made by the Collector before the date  of commencement of this Act".     It was observed in the above case that Section  30(1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Sec. 23(1)(a) shall  be  applicable  to  acquisition  proceedings  pending before the Collector as on 30th April, 1982 in which he  has not  made the award before that date. If the  Collector  has made the award before that date then that additional  amount cannot be awarded. We agree with the view taken in the above case. Thus applying the above principle in the cases in hand before  us it would be clear that in Special Leave  Petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

No. 9434 of 1989 the award was made by the Land  Acquisition Collector on 6th January, 1979 i.e. long before 30th  April, 1982  and  as  such the claimant in the above  case  is  not entitled  to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) as  inserted  in the  Principle Act by the Amending Act. So far as the  other two  Special Leave Petitions, namely, 9521/89  and  10130/89 are concerned, the awards have been made by the Land  Acqui- sition  Collector on 30th April, 1982 itself but not  before that  date. Section 30 the Transitional  Provisions  clearly provide  that the provisions of Subsection (1-A) of  Section 23  of the Principle Act, as inserted by Clause (a) of  Sec- tion 16 of this Act shall apply to every proceeding for  the acquisition  of any land under the Principle Act pending  on 30th  day of April, 1982 in which no award has been made  by the Collector before 532 that  date.  In the above two cases the award has  not  been made  by  the Collector before 30th day of April,  1982  but made on 30th April, 1982 itself and as such the claimants in these  two cases become entitled to the benefit  of  Section 23(1-A).     As a result of the above discussion the civil appeals in S.L.P.  (C) Nos. 952 1 of 1989 & 10 130 of 1989  stand  dis- missed. So far as appeal in Special Leave Petition No.  9434 of 1989 is concerned, it is allowed in part and the order of the High Court as well as that of the President Land  Acqui- sition Tribunal is modified only to the extent that interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum instead of  12% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 42  of the  Punjab Town Improvement Act, till the date of award  of the  Collector or the date of possession of the  land  which ever is earlier. So far as other additional benefits granted by  the President Land Acquisition Tribunal  are  concerned, the  same  would remain in-tact. In the  facts  and  circum- stances of the case there would be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                                Appeal allowed partly. 533