Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
K. KAMALA JAMMANNIAVARU (DEAD) BY LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND VICE VERSA.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1985
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 576 1985 SCR (2) 914
1985 SCC (1) 582 1985 SCALE (1)283
CITATOR INFO :
O 1985 SC1576 (4,5,7)
RF 1988 SC1652 (19)
F 1989 SC1933 (4,5,30,32,35)
APR 1990 SC 981 (9)
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 & Lang
Acquisition (Amendment Act, 1984 Section 51 (b) and 30(2).
Solatium of ’thirty per centum’-Entitlement of-When
arises-Awards made after April 30, 1982 and appeals arising
from such awrards.
HEADNOTE:
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 by s.
15(b) amended s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to
provide that in sub-section (2) of section 23 for the words
"fifteen per centum’, the words ’ thirty per centum" shall
be substituted. Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act provided
that the increased solution was to be applicable "in
relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to
any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in
appeal against any such award under the provisions of the
Principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of
introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982,
in the House of the People) and before the commencement of
this Act.
"The lands of the appellant-claimant were acquired
pursuant to notifications issued under s. 4(1) Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 on November 28, 1957 Being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Civil Judge and the High Court, appeals
were filed to this Court for enhancement. The State filed
appeals for reduction of the compensation.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant-
claimant that s. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1984 made the amended s. 33(2) which increased the
solatium to thirty per centum" applicable to all proceedings
in regard to compensation which had not became final whether
they be pending before the Collector, Court, High Court, or
Supreme Court.
Dismissing the Appeals,
^
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
HELD: The Parliament did not intend and could not
have intended that whatever be the date of the award however
ancient it may be, solarium
915
would stand enhanced to ’thirty per centum’ if an appeal
happened by chance or accident to be pending on April
30,1982. It was not the contention of parliament to reward
those who kept alive the litigation even after several
years. If it was the intention of Parliament to make the
amended s. 23(2) applicable to all proceeding relating to
compensation wherever they may be pending the words "after
the 30th day of April 1982 (the date of introduction of the
Land Acquisition(Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the house of the
people and before the commencement of this Act in s. 30(2)
to have very limited retrospectivity. it made the provision
applicable to awards after April 30, 1982 and before
September 24, 1964 also and further to appeals to the High
Court as well as Supreme court arising from such awards
[917C-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2:96
of 1970, 2712 and 2714 of 1972
On appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Decree
dated 12.3.1970 of the’ High Court of the Mysore at Banglore
in M F. Appeals No 155 & 168 of 1965.
K.N. Bhat and Miss Madhumulchandani for the appellant,
in C.A. No. 2196 & Respondent CAs. No. 271’-14.
K. Rajendra Choudhary for the Respondent in CA No.
2195 & Appellants in CAs. 2713-14.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In respect of acquisition of land
pursuant to notifications issued under s. 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act on November 28, 1957, compensation of Rs.
5250 for the land in S. No. 83 and compensation at the rate
of Rs. 800 per acre for the land in S. No. 74 was awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer. On a reference under s. 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Judge enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 18,000 for the land in S. No. 83 and Rs.
14,250 for the land in S. No. 74. The High Court, on appeal,
further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8000 per acre for
the land in S. No 83 and Rs. 2500- per acre for the land in
S. No. 74. The claimant has filed Civil Appeal No. 2196 of
l970 to enhance the compensation and the State of Karnataka
has preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2713 and 2714 of 1972 to
reduce the same. We are unable to find any question of
principle involved in any of the appeals and accordingly we
have no option but to dismiss them,
916
However, in the appeal filed by the claimant, Shri K.N.
Bhat, learned counsel, urged that in view of the Land
Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, his client is entitled to
be paid solarium of 30% of the compensation instead of the
15% to which he had been held entitled by the lower courts
under the unmended Act. He relied open sec. 15(b) and sec.
30(2) of the 1984 Amendment Act which are in the following
terms:-
"15. In Section 23 of the Principal Act,-
(a) ....................................
(b) in sub-section (2) for the words "fifteen per
centum", the words "thirty per centum" shall be
substituted."
...........................................
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
...................
"30. (1) ..............
(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23
and section 28 of the Principal Act as amended by
clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this
Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed
to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any
award made by the Collector or Court or to any
order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in
appeal against any such award under the provisions
of the Principal Act after the 30th day of April,
1982 (the date of introduction of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982, in the House of
the People) and before the commencement of this
Act,"
Shri Bhat’s submission was that s. 30(Z) of Amendment
Act made the amended s. 23(2) which increased the solarium
to thirty per centum applicable to all proceedings in regard
to compensation which had not become final whether they be
pending before the Collector, Court, High Court or Supreme
Court. We are unable to agree with Shri Bhat’s submission.
It is worth while remembering at this juncture that awards
made by the Collector under s. I l and by the Court on
reference under s. 18 only are described as awards in the
Land Acquisition Act, while further appeals are provided to
the High Court and the Supreme Court. The new s. 23(2), of
course, necessarily applies to awards made by the Collector
or Court after the commencement of the Act, that is after
September 9, 1984 which was the date on which the act
received that assent of the President.
917
The Bill which ultimately became the Amendment Act was
introduced into Parliament on April 30, 1982. Parliament
obviously desired to give effect to the amended s 23(2) from
the date of introduction of the Bill. So the amended
provision was expressly made applicable by s. 30(2) to
awards made by the Collector or Court between April 30, 1982
and September 24, 1984 also. A natural corollary was that
the new provision should apply to orders made by the High
Court or by the supreme Court in appeals against such
awards, that is, awards made between April 30, 1982 and
September 24, 1984. Parliament did not intend and could not
have intended that whatever be the date of the award,
however ancient it may be, solarium would stand enhanced to
’thirty per centum’ if an appeal happened by chance or
accident to pending an April 30, 1982. Surely it was not the
intention of Parliament to reward those who kept alive the
litigation of Parliament to make the amended s. 23(2)
applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation
wherever they be pending, the words after the 30th day of
April 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition
Amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of the People) and before
the commencement of this Act" in s. 30(2) and would become
meaningless. It is clear that Parliament wanted the amended
s.23(2) to have very limited retrospectivity. It made the
provision applicable to awards made after April 30, 1982 and
before September 24, 1984 also and further to appeals to the
High Court as the Supreme Court arising from such awards. In
this view we see no force in the submission of Shri Bhat.
All the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
918