http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5782 of 2002

PETITIONER: Karnal Improvement Trust

RESPONDENT: Sumitra Devi (dead) by Lrs. And Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL No.  5782 of 2002 (With C.A.Nos. 5670, 5778, 5779, 5804, 6566/2002)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.

1.      These appeals have an identical point and are therefore  disposed of by this common judgment.  

2.      Challenge in each case is to the final judgment and order  dated 29.1.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and  Haryana High Court. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant in  each case were dismissed. Challenge in the Writ Petitions was  to the award of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value  and other amounts permissible under Sections 23(1-A) and 28  of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ’Act’). According  to the appellant the benefits were not available to the  respondents because of the specific provisions of Section 30(1)  of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short the  ’Amendment Act’). The High Court relying on some earlier  judgments dismissed the writ petitions.  

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view  of the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip  Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990 (1) SCC 277)  and Kashiben Bhikabai and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition  Officer and Anr. (2002 (2) SCC 605) no amount was payable as  provisions of under Section 23(1-A) are not applicable.   Reference is also made to Section 30(1) of the Amendment Act  for the purpose which reads as follows:  "30.Transitional provisions. - (1) The  provisions of subsection (1-A) of Section 23 of  the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of  Section 15 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  (Amendment) 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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. (2)     xxx     xxx     xxx (3)     xxx     xxx     xxx."

4.      It is pointed out that since there was no enhancement of  compensation in excess of the award of the Collector, the  benefits under Section 28 of the Act are also not applicable.   Reliance is placed on The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Jagir  Singh etc. (JT 1995 (9) SC 1) .           5.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the judgment of the High Court.  

6.      In Filip Tiago’s case (supra) it was inter-alia observed at  para 21 as follows:

       "Entitlement of additional amount  provided under Section 23(1-A) depends upon  pendency of acquisition proceedings as on  April 30, 1982 or commencement of  acquisition proceedings after that date. Section  30 sub-section (1)(a) provides that additional  amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall  be applicable to acquisition proceedings  pending before the Collector as on April 30,  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. Section 30, sub- section (1)(b) provides that Section 23(1-A)  shall be applicable to every acquisition  proceedings commenced after April 30, 1982  irrespective of the fact whether the Collector  has made an award or not before September  24, 1984. The final point to note is that  Section 30 sub-section (1) does not refer to  court award and the court award is used only  in Section 30 sub-section (2)."

7.      Similarly, in Kashiben’s case (supra) it was observed as  follows:

"17. Counsel appearing for the claimants  contended that the claimants would be entitled  to an additional compensation @ 12% as  provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This  contention cannot be accepted in view of a  Bench decision of this Court in Union of India  v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De  Gama which held that additional  compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act  would not be available to a claimant in which  the acquisition proceedings commenced and  the award was made by the Collector prior to  30-4-1982. If the Collector made the award  before 30-4-1982 then the additional amount  under Section 23(1-A) cannot be awarded. The  pendency of the acquisition proceedings on 30- 4-1982 before the Collector was essential for  attracting the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of  the Act. It was held: (SCC pp. 286-87, para 21)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

’21. Entitlement of additional  amount provided under Section  23(1-A) depends upon pendency of  acquisition proceedings as on 30-4- 1982 or commencement of  acquisition proceedings after that  date. Section 30 sub-section (1)(a)  provides that additional amount  provided under Section 23(1-A) shall  be applicable to acquisition  proceedings pending before the  Collector as on 30-4-1982 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. Section 30 subsection  (1)(b) provides that Section 23(1-A)  shall be applicable to every  acquisition proceedings commenced  after 30-4-1982 irrespective of the  fact whether the Collector has made  an award or not before 24-9-1984.  The final point to note is that  Section 30 sub-section (1) does not  refer to court award and the court  award is used only in Section 30  sub-section (2).’

No judgment taking a contrary view to the  above-referred case was cited before us.  Accordingly, it is held that the appellants  would not be entitled to the additional  compensation provided under Section 23(1-A)  of the Act."

8.      In Jagir’s case (supra) it was observed as follows: "It would thus be seen that the legislative  animation is clear that the Civil Court on  reference under Section 18, or the High Court  or in some States District Judge exercising  appellate power under section 54 or civil court  under Section 26, as the case may be, awards  compensation in excess of the amount  awarded by the Collector, then it gets  jurisdiction and power to award additional  benefits envisaged in sub-section (I-A) of  section 23, sub-section (2) of Section 23 and   Section 28 of the Act. In other words,  enhancement of the compensation in excess of  the award of the collector under Section 11 is a  condition precedent to exercise the power to  award statutory additional amounts envisaged  under the aforesaid respective provisions on  the excess compensation. If the High Court  dismisses the appeal confirming the award of  the Collector or that of the civil court, then it  has no jurisdiction and power to award  additional statutory amount under the  respective provisions as amended under the  Amendment Act 68 of 1984."

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

9.      From a reading of the orders passed by the Reference  Court it is clear that there was no enhancement of the rates as  fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. That being so, benefits  under Section 28 of the Act are not available to the  respondents. The award was passed on 7.11.1972. The  Reference Court decided the case on 18.10.1997. That will not  change the position because as noted in Filip Tiago’s case  (supra) the relevant date is the date of award by the Collector  under the Act.  The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong in  dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.  The  inevitable conclusion is that respondents are not entitled to  solatium under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and similarly the  benefits under Section 28 of the Act.  

10.     The appeals are allowed but   with no order as to costs.