Full Judgment Text
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