1995 JTR(SC) 305
1995 AIR(SCW) 1691 ; 1995 2 CCC(SC) 229 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 229 ; 1995 1 CurLJ 492 ; 1995 3 JT 37 ; 1995 2 PLR(SC) 292 ; 1995 2 RRR 588 ; 1995 2 Scale 180 ; 1995 Supp2 SCC 406 ; 1995 3 SCJ 92 ; 1995 2 SCR 374 ; 1995 2 SCT 720
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Versus
BABU SINGH AND OTHERS
Civil Appeals Nos. 3287-95 of 1995
Decided on 28-2-1995
Appeals allowed
Advocates appeared:
G.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.151, S.152
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.18, S.54, S.28
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Sections 11, 18, and 23 read with Section 26, governed the determination of compensation for land acquired for public purpose, with the Collector determining compensation under Section 11 and the reference court empowered to enhance it under Section 18. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sections 151 and 152, provided for discretionary powers to amend decrees, but their application post-judgment was constrained by the statutory framework for enhancement under Section 23(1) read with Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, introduced enhanced solatium and interest provisions, yet its applicability was limited by the timing of the notification, the original award, and the conclusion of proceedings prior to its enactment.
(B) The High Court acquires jurisdiction only while enhancing or declining to enhance compensation under Section 54 read with Section 23(1); benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and interest attach only when the court exercises this jurisdiction to award higher compensation. Civil court or High Court jurisdiction under Section 23(1) is not independent of the reference courts proceedings, and amendments under Sections 151 and 152 cannot apply to amend decrees to grant additional benefits under the Amendment Act if the original proceedings were concluded before its commencement.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 11-12-1974 for acquisition of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The Collector made an award on 27-9-1976, which was enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 23-2-1978, and further enhanced by a Single Judge on 3-9-1980. The Land Acquisition Act proceedings were concluded on 27-4-1981, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 5-9-1983. Subsequently, applications under Sections 151 and 152 were moved in the High Court for amendments to decree or for benefits under the Amendment Act, which were challenged by special leave appeals.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was without jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend decrees already disposed of, as the proceedings were concluded prior to the Amendment Acts operation and the enhancement jurisdiction under Section 23(1) was not engaged. The principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 were applicable, confirming that solatium at 15% and interest at 6% were admissible only if ordered afresh by the reference court, and the Amendment Act provided no basis for enhancement in this timeline.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend decrees and award enhanced solatium, interest, and additional amounts under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, after the conclusion of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Whether the reference courts determination of compensation could be revised or supplemented by the High Court independently of an enhancement application under Section 23(1).
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court acquires jurisdiction only when it enhances or declines to enhance compensation under Section 54 and Section 23(1); benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and interest accrue only upon such enhancement. Applications under Sections 151 and 152 cannot be utilized to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act where the proceedings were concluded prior to its commencement, and the original decree stands as finally determined.
Result:
The appeals by special leave are allowed, the petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court are dismissed, and no order as to costs is made since the respondents are not represented.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Sections 11, 18, and 23 read with Section 26, governed the determination of compensation for land acquired for public purpose, with the Collector determining compensation under Section 11 and the reference court empowered to enhance it under Section 18. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sections 151 and 152, provided for discretionary powers to amend decrees, but their application post-judgment was constrained by the statutory framework for enhancement under Section 23(1) read with Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, introduced enhanced solatium and interest provisions, yet its applicability was limited by the timing of the notification, the original award, and the conclusion of proceedings prior to its enactment.
(B) The High Court acquires jurisdiction only while enhancing or declining to enhance compensation under Section 54 read with Section 23(1); benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and interest attach only when the court exercises this jurisdiction to award higher compensation. Civil court or High Court jurisdiction under Section 23(1) is not independent of the reference courts proceedings, and amendments under Sections 151 and 152 cannot apply to amend decrees to grant additional benefits under the Amendment Act if the original proceedings were concluded before its commencement.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 11-12-1974 for acquisition of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The Collector made an award on 27-9-1976, which was enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 23-2-1978, and further enhanced by a Single Judge on 3-9-1980. The Land Acquisition Act proceedings were concluded on 27-4-1981, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 5-9-1983. Subsequently, applications under Sections 151 and 152 were moved in the High Court for amendments to decree or for benefits under the Amendment Act, which were challenged by special leave appeals.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was without jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend decrees already disposed of, as the proceedings were concluded prior to the Amendment Acts operation and the enhancement jurisdiction under Section 23(1) was not engaged. The principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 were applicable, confirming that solatium at 15% and interest at 6% were admissible only if ordered afresh by the reference court, and the Amendment Act provided no basis for enhancement in this timeline.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend decrees and award enhanced solatium, interest, and additional amounts under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, after the conclusion of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Whether the reference courts determination of compensation could be revised or supplemented by the High Court independently of an enhancement application under Section 23(1).
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court acquires jurisdiction only when it enhances or declines to enhance compensation under Section 54 and Section 23(1); benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) and interest accrue only upon such enhancement. Applications under Sections 151 and 152 cannot be utilized to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act where the proceedings were concluded prior to its commencement, and the original decree stands as finally determined.
Result:
The appeals by special leave are allowed, the petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court are dismissed, and no order as to costs is made since the respondents are not represented.
G.K.BANSAL
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. After Shri R.B. Mehrotra was elevated to the Bench, notices have been sent to the respondents to make alternative arrangements. All the notices have been returned. In some cases the acknowledgements have not been received. Thus, we deem that the notices have been duly served on the respondents. They do not appear to be interested after the law has been settled by this Court and is against them.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), was published in the State Gazette on 11-12-1974 acquiring large extent of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for public purpose. The Collector under Section 11 made his award on 27-9-1976 determining the compensation between Rs 5000 and Rs 26,720 per acre. On reference, by decree dated 23-2-1978, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation varying between Rs 7000 and Rs 40,000 per acre. On further appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation between Rs 40,000 and Rs 50,000 per acre at a flat rate by judgment dated 3-9-1980. The LPA was dismissed on 27-4-1981. Thus, the proceedings were concluded prior to the Amendment Act coming into force. Since the SLP was dismissed on 5-9-1983 and some appeals were subsequently disposed of by the High Court, applications under Sections 151 and 152 were made in these matters for amending the decree or for awarding the benefits of enhanced solatium, interest and additional amount available under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 of the Act as amended by LA (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. Calling in question the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 15-7-1988, these appeals by special leave have been filed.
4. It is to be seen that the High Court acquires jurisdiction under Section 54 against the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court under Section 18, under Section 23(1) with Section 26 of the Act. The Court gets the jurisdiction only while enhancing or declining to enhance the compensation to award higher compensation. While enhancing the compensation "in addition" to the compensation under Section 23(1), the benefits enumerated under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) as also interest on the enhanced compensation on the amount which in the opinion of the Court "the Collector ought to have awarded in excess of the sum which the Collector did award", can be ordered. Thus, it would be clear that civil court or High Court gets jurisdiction when it determines higher compensation under Section 23(1) and not independently of the proceedings.
5. This is the view taken by this Court in State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 330 (sic) disposed of on 22-2-1995. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case, since as on the date when the judgment and decree was made by the High Court, the law was that the High Court should award solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. Payment of additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) cannot be made since the notification under Section 4(1) was dated 11-12-1974 and even the award of the District Court was dated 23-2-1978. Under these circumstances, the LA Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application and there is no error in the award or the decree as initially granted. The High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications under Sections 151 and 152 to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already disposed of.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court stand dismissed. Since the respondents are not represented, we make no order as to costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 406