1985 JTR(SC) 56
1985 AIR(SC) 576 ; 1985 11 AllLR 253 ; 1985 1 ALT(SC) 383 ; 1985 1 CurCC(SC) 1143 ; 1985 GLH 546 ; 1985 MhLJ(SC) 364 ; 1985 MPLJ 218 ; 1985 1 Scale 283 ; 1985 1 SCC 582 ; 1985 2 SCR 914 ; 1985 UJ 681 ; 1985 KHC 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O.CHINNAPPA REDDY AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
K. Kamalajammanniavaru (dead) by Lrs., Appellants
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Vice Versa, Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2196 of 1970, 2713 and 2714 of 1972, D/- 14-2-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Bhat, Advocate and Miss Madhu Moolchandani, Advocates for Appellant in C.A. No. 2196 of 1970 and Respondent in C.As. No. 2713-14 of 1972; Mr. K. Rajendra Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent, in C.A. No. 2196 of 1970 and Appellants in C.As. Nos. 2713-14 of 1972.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23(2), S.30(2)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions referenced, specifically section 23(2) and section 30(2), were amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. The core legal issue concerned whether the enhanced solatium of thirty per cent under the amended section 23(2) was applicable to compensation proceedings that were pending before various authorities. The High Court and Supreme Court appeals pertained to awards originally made by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced by lower courts and the High Court, with the appeals filed after the Amendment Act's assent. Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act sought to apply the amended provisions to awards made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984, as well as to pending appeals against such awards, but not to all historical claims irrespective of timeline.
(B) The key legal principle is that retrospective enhancement of solatium to thirty per cent applies only to compensation proceedings that were pending before the Collector, Court, High Court, or Supreme Court as of the specified date range, and not to all ancient claims. The Amendment Act's provisions have a limited retrospective effect tied to the pendency of appeals on the date of its introduction.
Facts of the case:
Compensation was initially awarded under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for specific land parcels. The awards were subsequently enhanced by a Civil Judge on reference, then further enhanced by the High Court on appeal. The claimant and the State of Karnataka then filed respective civil appeals to the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement and reduction of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found no question of principle requiring adjudication and dismissed all civil appeals. The Court concluded that the amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, read with section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, did not apply to the appeals filed in the case due to the temporal limitations specified in the statute.
Issues:
Whether section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, mandates the application of a thirty per cent solatium to all pending compensation proceedings before the Supreme Court, irrespective of when the original award was made.
Ratio Decidendi:
The amended section 23(2) and its enhancement of solatium to thirty per cent, as implemented by section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, apply only to awards and appeals falling within the prescribed date range and not to all historical litigation, thereby limiting the Act's retrospective operation.
Result:
The civil appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions referenced, specifically section 23(2) and section 30(2), were amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. The core legal issue concerned whether the enhanced solatium of thirty per cent under the amended section 23(2) was applicable to compensation proceedings that were pending before various authorities. The High Court and Supreme Court appeals pertained to awards originally made by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced by lower courts and the High Court, with the appeals filed after the Amendment Act's assent. Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act sought to apply the amended provisions to awards made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984, as well as to pending appeals against such awards, but not to all historical claims irrespective of timeline.
(B) The key legal principle is that retrospective enhancement of solatium to thirty per cent applies only to compensation proceedings that were pending before the Collector, Court, High Court, or Supreme Court as of the specified date range, and not to all ancient claims. The Amendment Act's provisions have a limited retrospective effect tied to the pendency of appeals on the date of its introduction.
Facts of the case:
Compensation was initially awarded under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for specific land parcels. The awards were subsequently enhanced by a Civil Judge on reference, then further enhanced by the High Court on appeal. The claimant and the State of Karnataka then filed respective civil appeals to the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement and reduction of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found no question of principle requiring adjudication and dismissed all civil appeals. The Court concluded that the amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, read with section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, did not apply to the appeals filed in the case due to the temporal limitations specified in the statute.
Issues:
Whether section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, mandates the application of a thirty per cent solatium to all pending compensation proceedings before the Supreme Court, irrespective of when the original award was made.
Ratio Decidendi:
The amended section 23(2) and its enhancement of solatium to thirty per cent, as implemented by section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, apply only to awards and appeals falling within the prescribed date range and not to all historical litigation, thereby limiting the Act's retrospective operation.
Result:
The civil appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.
K.N.BHATT, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, MADHU MULCHANDANI
Judgment
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- In respect of acquisition of land pursuant to notifications issued under sec. 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 1970 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.
2. 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 solatum of 30% of the compensation instead of the 15% to which he had been held entitled by the lower courts under the unamended Act. He relied upon 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."
... ..............
"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 SC 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 Bhats submission was that S. 30(2) of the Amendment Act made the amended S. 23(2) which increased the solatium 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 SC. We are unable to agree with Shri Bhats submission. It is worth while remembering at this juncture that awards made by the Collector under S. 11 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 SC. 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 the assent of the President. 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 SC 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, solatium would stand enhanced to thirty per centum if an appeal happened by chance or accident to be pending on April 30, 1982. Surely it was not the intention 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 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) 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 and the SC arising from such awards. In this view we see no force in the submission of Shri Bhat. All the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1985 SC 576
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.