Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2002
Stanes Higher Secondary School .. Appellant
Versus
Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition)
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this
appeal are recapitulated as under:-
3. The land belonging to the appellant-School measuring
1 acre 7229 sq.ft. was acquired by the respondent by a
2
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, [for short, ‘the Act’]. The land which was being used as
the play ground of the school children was acquired for the
purpose of expansion of a road for Ladies’ Super Market. The
st
possession of the land was taken on 21 November, 1975. The
lands are situated in the heart of Coimbatore City and very
close to the National Highway No. 47.
st
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31
December, 1981 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per
sq.ft. and awarded a sum of Rs.2,91,258/- towards cost of the
lands and 15% solatium.
5. The appellant-School aggrieved by the said award, made
a Reference to the Sub-Court, Coimbatore under Section 18 of
the Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of
Rs.30/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Court, Coimbatore, however, by a
comprehensive judgment fixed the compensation at the rate of
3
Rs.20/- per sq.ft. along with solatium of 15 per cent. The
Court also awarded interest at the rate of 4 per cent per
annum from the date the possession was taken till payment
was made.
6. The respondent herein preferred an appeal being A.S. No.
218 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court
allowed the appeal and modified the decree reducing the
compensation to Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Further, the High Court
fixed the interest at the rate of 9 per cent and solatium at 30
per cent of the market value. The appellant-School, aggrieved
by the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court,
preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
7. It may be pertinent to mention that Section 25 of the Act
th
was amended with effect from 24 September, 1984.
th
8. The un-amended Section 25, as it existed prior to 24
September, 1984, stated as under:
4
“Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation:
(1) When the applicant has made a claim to
compensation, pursuant to any notice given under
Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court
shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less
than the amount awarded by the Collector under
Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make
such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason
(to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim,
the amount awarded by the court shall in no case
exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a
sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to
make such claim, the amount awarded to him by
the court shall not be less than, and may exceed,
the amount awarded by the Collector.”
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
“Section 25. Amount of compensation
awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount
awarded by the Collector.
The amount of compensation awarded by the
Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by
the Collector under Section 11.”
9. This Court had an occasion to examine the controversy of
almost similar nature in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti etc.
v. Kanhaiya Lal & Others etc. (2000) 7 SCC 756. In this
5
case, this Court relying on its earlier judgment in Gobardhan
Mahto v. State of Bihar (1979) 4 SCC 330, observed as
under:
“Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before
its substitution by Act 68 of 1984, mandated the
court not to award compensation exceeding the
amount so claimed by the landowners and not to be
less than the amount awarded by the Collector.
This very clearly limits awarding of compensation
within the amount claimed. On the facts of the
present case it is not in dispute that the award itself
was given on 27-12-1977 and even proceeding
pursuant to referring order, was concluded on 28-
2-1981, i.e., much prior to the aforesaid amending
Act. Thus, on the facts of this case it is
unamended Section 25 to be applicable and not the
amended section. In view of this the peripheral
limitation on the court awarding the compensation,
would equally apply to the High Court exercising its
power as the first appellate court.”
10. A three-judge bench of this Court in Land Acquisition
Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons (2002) 3
SCC 463, has clearly laid down in para 6, which reads as
under:
“…….it is a well-settled principle of construction
that a substantive provision cannot be retrospective
in nature unless the provision itself indicates the
same. The amended provision of Section 25
nowhere indicates that the same would have any
retrospective effect. Consequently, therefore, it
6
would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to
24-9-1984, the date on which Act 68 of 1984 came
into force.”
11. In the instant case, admittedly, both the notification and
th
the award were issued prior to 24 September, 1984. The
parties are governed by an unamended provision of law.
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
12. In the present appeal, the land meant for the play ground
located in the heart of Coimbatore city and very close to
National Highway no. 47 was acquired by the respondent. The
amount of compensation has already been paid to the
appellant-School. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High Court is
modified and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate
to direct the respondent not to recover the amount of
compensation already paid to the appellant-School.
7
13. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear
their own costs.
….…………………………………….J.
[ DALVEER BHANDARI ]
…………………………………………J.
[ DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ]
New Delhi,
March 9, 2010