http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAGIR SINGH ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 626 JT 1995 (9)     1  1995 SCALE  (6)314

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though respondents have been served, none is appearing.      Leave granted.      The award  of the  Additional District  Judge is  dated March 2, 1978. When the State had gone in appeal against the award, while dismissing the appeals the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  at Chandigarh  had granted  additional benefits under the  Land  Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,  1894.  Sub- section (1)  of s.23  of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ’the  Act’) envisages  determination of the amount of compensation to  be awarded to the amount of compensation to be awarded  to the acquired land. Sub-section (1A) envisages that "in addition" to the market value of the land, as above provided, the  Court shall  in every  case award  an  amount calculated @  12 per  centum per  annum on such market value for  the   period  commencing   on  from  the  date  of  the publication of  the notification under s.4(1) to the date of the award  of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the  land, whichever  is earlier.  Sub-section  (2)  also provides that "in addition "to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30  per centum  on such  market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.      Section 28  envisages that  if the  sum which,  in  the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award  as  compensation,  it  enjoins  the  Court  that  the Collector ’shall pay on such excess" compensation interest @ nine per  centum per  annum from  the date  on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.  Under the  proviso, if  such excess or any part thereof is  paid into  Court after the date of expiry period of one  year from  the date  on which  possession is  taken, interest @ 15 per centum per annum shall be payable from the dated of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount

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

of such excess.      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 s.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 (1A)  of s.23,  sub-section (2)  of s.23 and s.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 amount  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. This Court held the same view in Union of India vs. Smt. Pratap  (Kaur) through  Lrs. & Anr. etc. [J.T. 1995 (2) SC 569],  State of  Maharashtra vs.  Maharau  Srawan  Hatkar [J.T. 1995  (2) SC  583] and The State of Punjab * Anr. etc. vs. Babu  Singh &  Ors. etc.,  [CA Nos. 3287-95/95 @ SLP (C) No. 2207-15 of 1979] decided on February 28, 1995.      Moreover, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India  vs. Raghubir  Singh [1989  (2) SCC  754] and  K.S. Paripoornan vs.  State of  Kerala [1994 (5) SCC 593] covered the  entire  gamut  of  controversy  and  entitlement  under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28.      The High  Court, therefore,  has no  power to award the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 while confirming the  decree of  the Reference  Court. The appeals are accordingly  allowed and the additional benefits awarded are set  aside.  However,  the  claimants  are  entitled  to solatium  @   15%  and   interest  @   6%  on  the  enhanced compensation made  by the  Reference Court. The award of the District Judge  as confirmed by the High Court stands upheld with the  above modification. The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances without costs.