15 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

COLLECTOR, CUTTACK Vs DURYODHAN JENA

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-007940-007940 / 1996
Diary number: 71257 / 1989


1

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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MARUTI LAXMAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 595        JT 1996 (5)    73  1996 SCALE  (4)298

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though notice  was served  on the  respondent,  no  one appears on behalf of him.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel for the appellant.      Notification  under   Section  4   [1]  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, the ’Act’] was published on July  31, 1969.  The Land  Acquisition officer  made  his award on  October  12,  1972  awarding  compensation  @  Rs. 1,000/- per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to  Rs.2,000/- per  acre by  award  and  decree dated February 18, 1977. The High Court while dismissing the State appeal  on July  16, 1986  has  awarded  the  enhanced benefits under  the Amendment  Act 68  of  1984.  Thus  this appeal by special leave.      This appeal  is only in respect of awarding of enhanced benefits under  Sections 23  [2], 28 end 23 [1A] of the Act. In view  of the settled legal position that the award of the civil  Court   was  made   long  before   the  date  of  the introduction of  the Amendment  Act 68 of 1984, the claimant is not  entitled to the enhanced benefits. That apart, it is also settled  legal position  that  the  High  Court,  while dismissing the  appellant’s appeal,  had no  jurisdiction to award the  additional benefits  since the  claimants did not file any  appeal for  further enhancement. Therefore, in the absence of  award additional compensation being awarded, the High Court  has no  jurisdiction to award the benefits under the provisions Of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the High Court awarding solatium, interest and additional amount under Section  23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A]  stands set aside. No costs.