The
State of Punjab & Anr Vs. Jagir Singh [1995] INSC
581 (30 October 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 626 JT 1995 (9) 1 1995 SCALE (6)314
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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.
Back