Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SA. JAIN COLLEGE TRUST & MANAGING SOCIETY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1995
BENCH:
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
BENCH:
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (3) 74 JT 1995 (3) 510
1995 SCALE (2)95
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
PARIPOORNAN, J.:
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is filed against the Judgment dated
09.05.1986, of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana, in L.P.A. No. 139 of 1986 and C.M. No. 903
of 1986, affirming the Judg-
512
ment of the Single Judge rendered in R.F.A. 390/75 dated
25.10.1985 regarding the award of compensation made under
land Acquisition Act. The appellant-Society is running
educational and charitable Institutions in the State of
haryana. For providing a playground to one of its colleges,
the appellant-Society got acquired 7 bighas of land
belonging to the second respondent in this appeal (original
claimant in the land acquisition proceedings), under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ’the
Act’. Notifications under section 4 of the Act were issued
on 15.05,1968, and 11.06.1968. The notification under
section 6 was issued on 13.8.1969. fly an award dated
29.9.1970, compensation was awarded to the second respondent
the land owner, at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per acre and Rs.
1000/- as price of well apart from 15% solatium and 6%
interest, from the date of Notification up to the date of
award.
3.In the reference to court at the instance of the appellant
as well as the third respondent, the Addl. District Judge,
byjudgment dated 30.12.1974, awarded the enhanced
compensation at the rate of Re. 1/per sq.yard for the entire
land and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum under
section 4 of the Act from the date of Notification till the
additional amount was paid to the claimant. In the appeal
filed by the claimant before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in R.F.A. No.390 of 1975, a learned Single Judge of
that court by Judgment dated 25.10,1985 enhanced the com-
pensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.g/- per
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
sq.yard. The learned Single Judge also awarded 30% of the
market value of the land acquired as solatium, along with
12% of such market value from the date of Notification under
section 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession of
the land and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the
first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date
of payment of compensation for the land acquired. It is
against the aforesaid Judgment the petitioner/appellant
filed LPA No. 139 of 1986 before the Division Bench, wherein
the award of compensation was not interfered with.
4.We heard counsel for the appellant Sri. H.M. Singh and
also the counsel for the respondents Sri Mahabir Singh. The
main grievance of counsel for the appellant was that the
Division Bench was in error in declining to consider the
issue of enhancement of compensation and the resultant
benefits awarded by the learned Single Judge. We find from
a close perusal of the Judgment of the District Judge and
also the learned Single Judge, that the land acquired
possessed all characteristics of a potential building site
for both residential as also commercial or industrial
purposes and it was near to other buildings and es-
tablishments. Considering the totality of the circumstances
and other relevant particulars, the learned Single Judge
noticed that the rate of land in the locality had gone up to
Rs. 9/- per sq.yard in 1967 and has still gone up to Rs.
11/- per sq.yard in 1970 and 1971. In the circumstances,
the learned Single Judge fixed the market value for the land
acquired at Rs.8/- per sq.yard. We are of the view that
considering the importance of the locality, the potential of
the land, and the user to which it can be put, the fixation
of the market value of the land acquired at Rs.8/- per
sq.yard is reasonable and the Division Bench in appeal did
not rightly interfere with the above determination. We hold
that the fixation of the market value of the land acquired
at
513
Rs. 8/- per sq. yard is reasonable and proper.
5.The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (ActNo-68 of
1984) became law on 24th September, 1984. The appeal filed
by the claimant was pending before the learned Single Judge
of the High Court on the day when the Amendment Act came
into force. The learned Single Judge delivered the Judgment
on 25.10.1985., So the award of 30% solatium on the market
value of the land acquired is justified. Similarly the
award of the interest on excess compensation fixed by the
Court at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of
taking possession, and thereafter at 15% till the date of
payment of the compensation for the land acquired, is
equally justified. But we are of the view that the amount
of 12% per annum awarded on the market value from the date
of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the
Act till the date of taking possession of the land, awarded
as per section 23(1A), is not legally justified. In this
case, the proceedings for land acquisition cornmenced as
early as 15.5.1968 and the award was made by the Collector
on 29.2.1970, and the possession of the land was taken
immediately thereafter. All such events happened long
before the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984. In
such cases the claimants are not entitled to the benefit
under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act (Amendment Act 68 of 1984). This view is fortified by
the decision of this Court in Union of India v. B. V. Saroja
& Anr. (1995 (1) SCALE 309).
6.In the result, we hold that the claimant is not entitled
to the benefit of section 23(1-A) of the Act --,award of an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market
value from the date of publication of the notification under
section 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession of
the land. Subject to this modification, the decisions of
the courts below are affirmed. There shall be no order as
to costs in this appeal.
515