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

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BABU SINGH & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/02/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 256 1995 SCALE  (2)385

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.   After  Shri  R.B. Mehrotra was elevated to  the  Bench, notices   have  been  sent  to  the  respondents   to   make alternative arrangements.  All the notices have 38 been returned.  In some cases the acknowledgements have  not been received Thus, we deem that the notices have been  duly served  on  the  respondents.   They do  not  appear  to  be interested after the law has been settled by this Court  and is against them. 3.  Notification under s.4(1) of the Land, Acquisition  Act, 1894  (for  short  ’the Act’), was published  in  the  State Gazette  on  11.12.1974  acquiring large extent  o  land  in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for  public purpose.   The  Collector  under s. II  made  his  award  on 27.9.1976  determining the compensation  between  Rs.5,000/- and  Rs.26,720/-  per acre.  On reference, by  decree  dated 23.2.1978, the Addl.  Dist.  Judge enhanced the compensation varying  between  Rs.7,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per  acre.   On further  appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the  compensation between Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre at flat rate by judgment  dated  3.9.1980.  The  L.P.A.  was  dismissed   on 27.4.1981. Thus, the proceedings were concluded prior to the Amendment  Act  has come into force.  Since the  S.L.P.  was dismissed  on  5.9.1983 and some appeals  were  subsequently disposed of by the High Court, applications under s. 151 and 152  were made in these matters for amending the  decree  or for awarding the benefits of enhanced solatium, interest and additional amount available under ss. 23(1-A), 23(2), 28  of the  Act  as  amended by L.A. (Amendment) Act  68  of  1984. Calling in question the orders of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 15.7.1988, these appeals by special leave have been filed. 4.It is to be seen that the High Court acquires jurisdiction under s. 54 against the enhanced compensation awarded by the

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

reference  court under s-18, under s.23(1) with s.26 of  the Act.   The Court gets the jurisdiction only while  enhancing or  declining  to enhance the compensation to  award  higher compensation.    While   enhancing  the   compensation   "in addition"  to the compensation under s.23(1),  the  benefits enumerated under s.23(1-A) and s.23(2) also interest on  the enhanced compensation on the amount which in the opinion  of the Court "the Collector ought to have awarded in excess  of the  sum  which the Collector did award",  can  be  ordered. Thus, it would be clear that Civil Court or High Court  gets jurisdiction  when it determines higher  compensation  under s.23(1) and not independently of the proceedings. 5.This  is the view taken by this Court in C.A. No.  1607/78 titled State of Punjab v.     Satinder  Bir Singh,  disposed of on 22.2.1995.The same ratio applies to the facts in  this case, since as on the date when the judgment and decree  was made  by  the High Court, the law was that  the  High  Court should award solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.  Payment of additional amount as contemplated under s.23(1-A) cannot  be made  since  the  notification under s.4(1)  was  dated  II. 12.1974  and even the award of the District Court was  dated 23.2.1978. Under these circumstances, the L.A. Amendment Act 68  of 1984 has no application and there is no error in  the award  or the decree as initially granted.  The  High  Court was   clearly  without  jurisdiction  in  entertaining   the applications under ss.  ISI and 1 52 to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend  the decrees already disposed of 6. The appeals are accordingly 39 allowed.  The petitions filed by the respondents before  the High  Court stand dismissed.  Since the respondents are  not represented, we make no order as to costs.