18 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

THE STATE OF. PUNJAB Vs DES RAJ

Bench: KULDIP SINGH (J)
Case number: C.A. No.-007673-007673 / 1996
Diary number: 71251 / 1989


1

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

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DES RAJ

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/04/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   263        1996 SCALE  (3)579

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned. Leave granted.      Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  [for short, the ’Act’] was published on March 11, 1978 acquiring 55 acres 5 kanals 1 marla for construction of new Mandi  at Jalalabad.  The Collector  in his  award dated March 13,  1978 determined the compensation at Rs.4500/- per acre. On  reference, the  Additional District  Judge by  his award  and   decree  dated   March  19,  1982  enhanced  the compensation to Rs.25,000/- per acre and R5.20,000/-per acre on the  basis of  belting. The  learned single  Judge by his judgment and  decree dated December 2, 1988 further enhanced the compensation  to Rs.43,000/- and Rs.34,000/- per acre on belting basis,  but applied  the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of  1984. In  this appeal, we are concerned only with the applicability of  Sections 23 (2), 28 and 23(1-A) of the Act as amended  by Act  68 of  1984. Since  the reference  Court determined the  compensation on  March 19, 1982, i.e., prior to the  introduction of the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled  to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional  amount under  section 23(2),  28 and 23(1-A) respectively of the Act.      It is  brought to our notice that dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation  of Rs.43,000/- per acre, the claimant has filed  Letters Patent  Appeal and that it is pending. If that is  so, we  need  not  go  into  the  question  whether determination of  the compensation  by  the  learned  single Judge at  Rs.43,000/- per  acre is  justified  or  not.  The matter is  left open.  The Division  Bench would  be free to decide the  matter according  to law.  But  as  regards  the applicability of  the amended  provisions, in  view  of  the above facts,  the learned  single Judge was clearly in error in extending  the  additional  benefits  under  the  amended provisions of the Act.       The  appeal is accordingly allowed. The order awarding

2

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

30% solatium, 9% interest from the date of taking possession for one  year and  thereafter 15%   interest  and  also  the additional amount  of 12%  per annum  under section  23(1-A) stands set  aside. Instead,  the claimant is entitled to 15% solatium under  section 23 (2) and 6% interest under Section 28 as  unamended,  on enhanced compensation from the date of taking   possession till  date of  deposit  into  Court.  No costs.