1995 JTR(SC) 76
1994 1 CCC(SC) 348 ; 1995 1 CurCC(SC) 348 ; 1995 DNJ 247 ; 1995 2 JT 495 ; 1995 1 RLW(Raj) 112 ; 1995 2 RRR 312 ; 1995 1 Scale 309 ; 1995 2 SCC 563 ; 1995 1 SCR 348 ; 1995 1 UJ 326 ; 1995 KHC 1277
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy : Sujata V.Manohar
Umed Industries And Land Development Company
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 1299 of 1988
Date of Decision : 1/17/95
Advocates Appeared: Beri B.B. : Makwana Indra : Sharma B.D.
Act
Referred
:LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23(2), S.23(1)(a)
RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT : S.52(2), S.60(a), S.53(6)(a)
(A) This case involves the interplay between the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically concerning the determination of compensation, solatium, and interest. The appellants challenged the validity of Section 52(2) and Section 53(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, arguing they were inconsistent with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The court analyzed the impact of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act 29 of 1987, particularly the transitory provisions under Section 60-A, which dictate how pending matters are handled. The court further applied Section 23(1)(a) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the entitlement to additional amounts and interest on enhanced compensation, balancing the statutory regime in place at the time of acquisition against subsequent legislative amendments.
(B) The core legal principles involve the retrospective and prospective application of amendment acts to pending land acquisition proceedings. It establishes that while prior actions under a state act may not be reopened, subsequent proceedings in pending matters must align with the central Land Acquisition Act if transitory provisions so mandate. Solatium and interest rates are determined based on the date of commencement of the relevant amendment acts.
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, in 1974. The Additional Collector determined the market value at Rs. 13.50 per sq. yd. in 1980. On appeal, the District Judge increased the compensation to Rs. 49.50 per sq. yd. and reduced interest from 10% to 6%. The appellants moved the High Court in revision, which was dismissed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court, where the appellants argued that the state act's provisions on solatium and interest were void due to inconsistency with the central Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 52(2) and 53(6)(a) could not be entertained as it was not pursued in the High Court. However, under the transitory provisions of Section 60-A of the State Amendment Act 29 of 1987, pending matters must be decided according to the Land Acquisition Act. Since the District Court award was made before the amendment, 30% solatium was not applicable, but 15% solatium is payable from the date of the state amendment (1/8/1987). Interest is payable at 9% for the first year from 1/8/1987 and 15% thereafter. Additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is not payable as proceedings were not pending before a civil court on the date of the central amendment's commencement.
Issues:
1. Whether Sections 52(2) and 53(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act are void for inconsistency with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to solatium and enhanced interest under the amended legislative framework for pending proceedings.
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Legislative amendments to land acquisition laws apply to pending proceedings based on the specific transitory provisions provided by the legislature. Entitlements to solatium and interest under an amending act accrue from the date the amendment becomes applicable to the specific state or proceeding, not retrospectively to the date of original acquisition if the award was already passed.
Result:
The appeal was allowed in part, granting 15% solatium from 1/8/1987 and specific interest rates (9% for the first year and 15% thereafter) on the enhanced compensation, while denying the additional amount under Section 23(1-A).
(A) This case involves the interplay between the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically concerning the determination of compensation, solatium, and interest. The appellants challenged the validity of Section 52(2) and Section 53(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, arguing they were inconsistent with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The court analyzed the impact of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act 29 of 1987, particularly the transitory provisions under Section 60-A, which dictate how pending matters are handled. The court further applied Section 23(1)(a) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the entitlement to additional amounts and interest on enhanced compensation, balancing the statutory regime in place at the time of acquisition against subsequent legislative amendments.
(B) The core legal principles involve the retrospective and prospective application of amendment acts to pending land acquisition proceedings. It establishes that while prior actions under a state act may not be reopened, subsequent proceedings in pending matters must align with the central Land Acquisition Act if transitory provisions so mandate. Solatium and interest rates are determined based on the date of commencement of the relevant amendment acts.
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, in 1974. The Additional Collector determined the market value at Rs. 13.50 per sq. yd. in 1980. On appeal, the District Judge increased the compensation to Rs. 49.50 per sq. yd. and reduced interest from 10% to 6%. The appellants moved the High Court in revision, which was dismissed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court, where the appellants argued that the state act's provisions on solatium and interest were void due to inconsistency with the central Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 52(2) and 53(6)(a) could not be entertained as it was not pursued in the High Court. However, under the transitory provisions of Section 60-A of the State Amendment Act 29 of 1987, pending matters must be decided according to the Land Acquisition Act. Since the District Court award was made before the amendment, 30% solatium was not applicable, but 15% solatium is payable from the date of the state amendment (1/8/1987). Interest is payable at 9% for the first year from 1/8/1987 and 15% thereafter. Additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is not payable as proceedings were not pending before a civil court on the date of the central amendment's commencement.
Issues:
1. Whether Sections 52(2) and 53(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act are void for inconsistency with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to solatium and enhanced interest under the amended legislative framework for pending proceedings.
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Legislative amendments to land acquisition laws apply to pending proceedings based on the specific transitory provisions provided by the legislature. Entitlements to solatium and interest under an amending act accrue from the date the amendment becomes applicable to the specific state or proceeding, not retrospectively to the date of original acquisition if the award was already passed.
Result:
The appeal was allowed in part, granting 15% solatium from 1/8/1987 and specific interest rates (9% for the first year and 15% thereafter) on the enhanced compensation, while denying the additional amount under Section 23(1-A).
B.B.BERI, B.D.SHARMA, INDRA MAKWANA
(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, 1959 for short the Act, was published in the State Gazette on 10/10/1974 acquiring an extent of 39,875 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 compensation @ Rs. 49.50 per sq, yd. and reduced the interest from 10% to 6% from 10/10/1974. Still further aggrieved, the appellants carried the matter in revision to the High court. The appellants revision is 498 of 1983, 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 S. 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 S. 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 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 regards the Act is concerned, the Legislature amended the same by State Amendment Act 29 of 1987 which came into force w.e.f. 1-8-1987. Therein the Act has taken care of transitory provision in Section 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 Ss. (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) Ordinance, 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 Acquisition 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 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 * * *
(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 Ss. (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 1984, 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 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 LA Act. Sub- section (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 LA 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 LA 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 Section 53. Section 53(6(a) specifically omits to pay solatium for compulsory acquisition. Thereby, prior to the commencement of the central Act 68 of 1984, namely, 24/9/1984, the claimants are not entitled to solatium.
(5) IN Union of India v. Raghubir Single 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 payable. In view of the fact that the award was made by the District court on 9/2/1983 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 District court. As regards interest is concerned, till the State Amendment Act has been operating i.e. till 1/1/1987 the claimants are entitled to interest under the central Amendment Act only on and from 1/9/1987 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 Section 23(1-A) this court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala 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 amount under Section 23(1-A).
(6) THE appeal is allowed only to the above extent. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.