NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2002

Stanes Higher Secondary School     .. Appellant

Versus

Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu          .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The  brief  facts  which  are  necessary  to  dispose  of  this  

appeal are recapitulated as under:-

3. The  land  belonging to the appellant-School measuring  

1  acre  7229  sq.ft.  was  acquired  by  the  respondent  by  a

notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894, [for short, ‘the Act’].  The land which was being used as  

the play ground of the school children was acquired for the  

purpose of expansion of a road for Ladies’ Super Market.   The  

possession of the land was taken on 21st November, 1975.  The  

lands are situated in the heart of Coimbatore City and very  

close to the National Highway No. 47.

4. The  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  by  his  award  dated  31st  

December, 1981 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per  

sq.ft. and awarded a sum of Rs.2,91,258/- towards cost of the  

lands and 15% solatium.   

5. The appellant-School aggrieved by the said award, made  

a Reference to the Sub-Court, Coimbatore under Section 18 of  

the Act.   The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of  

Rs.30/- per sq.ft.   The Sub-Court, Coimbatore, however, by a  

comprehensive judgment fixed the compensation at the rate of  

2

Rs.20/-  per sq.ft.  along with solatium of  15 per  cent.   The  

Court  also  awarded  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  

annum from the date the possession was taken till payment  

was made.

6. The respondent herein preferred an appeal being A.S. No.  

218 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras.  The High Court  

allowed  the  appeal  and  modified  the  decree  reducing  the  

compensation to Rs.10/- per sq.ft.   Further, the High Court  

fixed the interest at the rate of 9 per cent and solatium at 30  

per cent of the market value.  The appellant-School, aggrieved  

by  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  Madras  High  Court,  

preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that Section 25 of the Act  

was amended with effect from 24th September, 1984.  

8. The un-amended Section 25, as it  existed prior to 24th  

September, 1984, stated as under:

3

“Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation:

(1)  When the applicant  has made a claim to  compensation, pursuant to any notice given under  Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court  shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less  than the  amount  awarded by the Collector  under  Section 11.

(2) When the applicant has refused to make  such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason  (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim,  the amount awarded by the court shall in no case  exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When  the  applicant  has  omitted  for  a  sufficient  reason  (to  be  allowed  by  the  Judge)  to  make such claim, the amount awarded to him by  the court shall not be less than, and may exceed,  the amount awarded by the Collector.”

The amended Section 25 reads as under:

“Section  25.   Amount  of  compensation  awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount  awarded by the Collector.

The amount of compensation awarded by the  Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by  the Collector under Section 11.”

9. This Court had an occasion to examine the controversy of  

almost similar nature in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti etc.  

v.  Kanhaiya Lal & Others etc.  (2000) 7 SCC 756.  In this  

4

case, this Court relying on its earlier judgment in Gobardhan  

Mahto v.  State  of  Bihar (1979)  4  SCC  330,  observed  as  

under:

“Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before  its  substitution by Act 68 of  1984,  mandated the  court  not  to  award  compensation  exceeding  the  amount so claimed by the landowners and not to be  less  than  the  amount  awarded  by  the  Collector.  This  very  clearly  limits  awarding of  compensation  within  the  amount  claimed.  On  the  facts  of  the  present case it is not in dispute that the award itself  was  given  on  27-12-1977  and   even  proceeding  pursuant to referring order,   was concluded on  28- 2-1981, i.e.,  much prior to the aforesaid amending  Act.    Thus,  on  the  facts  of  this  case  it  is  unamended Section 25 to be applicable and not the  amended  section.   In  view  of  this  the  peripheral  limitation on the court awarding the compensation,  would equally apply to the High Court exercising its  power as the first appellate court.”

10. A three-judge bench of this Court in  Land Acquisition  

Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. v.  B.V.  Reddy and Sons (2002)  3  

SCC 463,  has clearly  laid  down in para  6,  which reads  as  

under:

“…….it  is  a  well-settled  principle  of  construction  that a substantive provision cannot be retrospective  in  nature  unless  the  provision itself  indicates the  same.   The  amended  provision  of  Section  25  nowhere  indicates  that  the  same would have  any  retrospective  effect.   Consequently,  therefore,  it  

5

would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to  24-9-1984, the date on which Act 68 of 1984 came  into force.”

11. In the instant case, admittedly, both the notification and  

the award were issued prior  to  24th September,  1984.   The  

parties  are  governed  by  an  unamended  provision  of  law.  

Therefore,  we  do  not  find  any  infirmity  in  the  impugned  

judgment of the High Court.

12. In the present appeal, the land meant for the play ground  

located  in  the  heart  of  Coimbatore  city  and  very  close  to  

National Highway no. 47 was acquired by the respondent.  The  

amount  of  compensation  has  already  been  paid  to  the  

appellant-School.  Therefore,  in  the  peculiar  facts  and  

circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High Court is  

modified and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate  

to  direct  the  respondent  not  to  recover  the  amount  of  

compensation already paid to the appellant-School.

6

13. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.  In the facts  

and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear  

their own costs.

….…………………………………….J. [ DALVEER BHANDARI ]

      …………………………………………J. [ DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ]

New Delhi, March 9, 2010

7