http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UMED INDUSTRIES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 563        JT 1995 (2)   495  1995 SCALE  (1)309

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1. This appeal,  by special leave, arises from the  Judgment of the learned  Single Judge of the High Court of  Rajasthan dated 22.7.1987 made in Revision No. 265 of 1983 and batch. 2.   The  Notification  under Section 52  of  the  Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 496 1959, for short the Act, was published in the State  Gazette on  10. 10. 1974 acquiring an extent of 39875 acres of  land for urban development.  Possession of the land was taken  on 10.  10.  1974.   Though the appellant  had  claimed  larger amount,   the  additional  Collector  in  his  Award   dated 18.4.1980 determined the market value @ Rs. 13.50 per sq.yd. Feeling  aggrieved,  the appellants carried  the  matter  in appeal  under  Section  54 of the  Act  claiming  additional amount of compensation and also solatium and interest.   The Government  also  filed  appeals against the  order  of  the Collector awarding 10% interest.  The District Judge by  his common  award and decree dated 9.2.1983 determined the  com- pensation  @ Rs. 49.50 per sq.yd. and reduced  the  interest from  10%  to  6%  from October  10,  1974.   Still  further aggrieved, the appellants carried the matter in revision  to the High Court.  The apellants’ revision is 498/83, the High Court by a common judgment dismissed the revision  petitions as stated earlier on 22.7.1984. Thus this appeal. 3.   The  only contention raised by the learned counsel  for the  appellants  is  that the provisions  of  Sec.52(2)  and 53(6)(a)  are inconsistent with the provisions of  the  Land Acquisition   (Amendment)  Act  68  of  1984  amending   the principal Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 and that  therefore the   provisions  of  Sec.52(2)  and  53(6)(a)   are   void. Unfortunately, this contention, though was raised before the District  Judge,, was not pursued before the High Court  nor any independent proceedings have been taken challenging  the constitutionality    of   the   provisions    referred    to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

hereinbefore.  Therefore, we cannot permit the appellants to agitate  this  question for the first time in  this  appeal. However, the State Legislature, after the Central Act 68  of 1984  has  come  into force, has taken  care  to  amend  the provisions  of  the Act and the relevant provisions  in  the Rajasthan  Land Acquisition Act, 1953 as applicable  to  the State  by  appropriate  amendments.  As regard  the  Act  is concerned, the Legislature amended the same by State  Amend- ment  Act 29 of 1987 which came into force w.e.f.  1.8.1987. Therein  the Act has taken care of transitory  provision  in Sec.60-A of the Act which reads thus:               "60-A.   Transitory  provisions  for   pending               matters  relating to acquisition of  land.-(1)               Notwithstanding  anything otherwise  contained               in sub-section (1) of Section 52, where in any               matter  relating  to the acquisition  of  land               pending  on  the date of commencement  of  the               Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment)  Ordi-               nance,  1987  (hereinafter  in  this   section               referred  to as the date of commencement),  an               action, thing or order has been taken. done or               made   under  and  in  accordance   with   the               provisions of this Act as it stood before  the               date  of  commencement such  action  thing  or               order shall not be reopened or reviewed or  be               liable  to  be challenged on the  ground  that               such  action, thing or order was  at  variance               with that provided in the Land Acquisition Act               1894  (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter  in               this section referred to as the Land  Acquisi-               tion  Act) subject. however, that any  further               proceeding,  action  or order in  such  matter               conducted, taken or made on or after the  date               of  commencement  shall subject to  the  other               provisions of this section, be made under  and               in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.               (2)    The amount of compensation or  interest               or that payable for any other reason shall  in               a matter pending on the date of  commencement,               be  payable under and in accordance  with  the               provisions of the               497               Land Acquisition Act and the money paid  prior               to the date of commencement shall be  deducted               from or adjusted against the said amount.               (3)&(4) xxxxx               (5)   In    determining    the    amount    of               compensation to be awarded in a matter pending               on the date of commencement, the market  value               of  the land at the date on which  the  notice               was  published in the official  Gazette  under               clause (b) of subsection (6) of section 53, as               it  stood  before the  date  of  commencement,               shall be taken into consideration.               (6)   An  appeal  filed under  section  54  or               section 56 or a dispute referred under section               55  or section 59 and pending on the  date  of               commencement shall be decided having regard to               the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act." A reading thereof would make the legislative intention clear that any action taken, done or made under and in  accordance with  the provisions of the Act as it stood before the  date of commencement of the Central Amendment Act 68 of 84,  such action, thing or order shall not be reopened or reviewed  or be  liable to be challenged on the ground that such  action,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

thing  or  order was at variance with that provided  in  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)  subject, however,  that  any further proceeding, action or  order  in such matter conducted, taken or made on or after the date of commencement  shall subject to the other provisions of  this section,  namely,  section  60-A,  be  made  under  and   in accordance  with  the L.A.Act. Sub-sec.(2)  also  makes  the matter  very  clear namely, the amount  of  compensation  or interest  or that payable for any other reason shall,  in  a matter pending on the date of commencement, be payable under and  in  accordance  with the provisions  of  the  L.A.  Act (Central  Act)  and  the money paid prior  to  the  date  of commencement shall be deducted from or adjusted against  the said  amount.  It was applied to pending appeals.   Thereby, it  is  amply  clear  that the  amount  of  compensation  or interest  or  that payable for any  other  reason  (solatium under  the  Central  Act) shall be in  accordance  with  the provisions  of the L.A. Act.  But their entitlement will  be only  from  the  date of commencement of the  Act  but,  not anterior thereto. 4.   Section 52(2) provides payment of simple     interest at 6% per annum on the amount of   compensation   determined under  sec.53.  Sec.  53(6)(a)  specifically  omits  to  pay solatium for compulsory acquisition, There by, prior to  the commencement  of  the  Central  Act  68  of  1984,   namely, September  24,  1984,  the claimants  arc  not  entitled  to solatium. 5.In  Union of India v. Raghubir Singh & Ors. (1989 (3)  SCR 316)  a  constitution Bench of this Court has held  that  in proceedings  pending before the date of the introduction  of the  Amendment Act and the date of the commencement  of  the Amendment Act either before the Land Acquisition Officer  or before  the reference court enhanced solatium would be  pay- able.   In view of the fact that the award was made  by  the District  Court on 9.2.83 i.e. prior to the commencement  of the  Amendment  Act,  the  claimants  are  not  entitled  to solatium  @ 30% However, since the proceedings are  pending, they  are  entitled to payment of solatium at 15%  from  the date  of commencement of the Act namely, 1-8-1987 till  date of payment on the enhanced compensation awarded by the 498 District Court.  As regards interest is concerned, till  the State  Amendment Act has been operating till 1. 1. 1987  the claimants  are  entitled  to  interest  under  the   Central Amendment  Act  only  on and from  1.9.87  On  the  enhanced compensation  at 9% per annum on the enhanced  market  value for  one year from 1.8.1987. Therefore, after expiry of  one year  till  date of payment or deposit,  the  claimants  are entitled  to interest at 15% on the  enhanced  compensation. With regard to additional amount under s.23(1-A) this  Court in  K.S.  Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994 (5)  SCC  593 held  that  the  claimants  would not  be  entitled  to  the additional  amount,  if  the proceedings  were  not  pending before the Civil Court as on the date of the commencement of Central  Amendment  Act. Since the amendment  Act  was  made applicable  only  on 1.8.1987, the claimants  also  are  not entitled to the additional amounts u/s 23(1-A). 6.The appeal is allowed only to the aboveextent. But  in the  circumstances, the parties are directed to  bear  their own costs. 499