1995 JTR(SC) 1051
1995 AIR(SCW) 4426 ; 1995 3 CCC(SC) 81 ; 1995 4 CurCC(SC) 81 ; 1996 1 ICC 178 ; 1995 9 JT 1 ; 1995 6 Scale 314 ; 1995 Supp4 SCC 626 ; 1991 2 SCR 790 ; 1995 Supp4 SCR 552
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF PUNJAB
Vs.
JAGIR SINGH
Decided on October 30, 1995
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23(2), S.28, S.23(1)(a)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 23(1)(a), 23(2), and 28 govern compensation determination and enhancement when a civil court or high court awards compensation exceeding the collectors amount. These provisions mandate additional benefits based on market value, interest, and a solatium, exercisable only upon enhancement. Constitutional bench principles from Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and K. S. Paripooman clarify that statutory additional benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 are unavailable if the high court merely confirms the collectors award without enhancement.
(B) Key principles include: (i) appellate courts confirming awards lack jurisdiction to grant statutory additional benefits; (ii) enhancement of compensation is a condition precedent to exercising power under sections 23(1-A) and 23(2); (iii) interest at prescribed rates applies to excess compensation; (iv) solatium and interest may be awarded on enhanced amounts; (v) dismissal of appeals results in no additional statutory entitlements.
Facts of the case:
The state acquired land, and the collector awarded compensation. The high court dismissed appeals against the award but granted additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, including interest and solatium. The state challenged this order.
Findings of Court:
The high court erred in awarding statutory additional benefits upon confirmation. Such powers attach only to enhancement under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28, which cannot be invoked if the original award is merely confirmed.
Issues:
Whether a high court confirming a collectors compensation award can grant additional statutory benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate confirmation of the collectors award without enhancement precludes the exercise of jurisdiction to award additional statutory benefits; however, solatium and interest on enhanced compensation may be permitted.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the additional benefits set aside, and the award of the district judge is upheld with modifications for solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 23(1)(a), 23(2), and 28 govern compensation determination and enhancement when a civil court or high court awards compensation exceeding the collectors amount. These provisions mandate additional benefits based on market value, interest, and a solatium, exercisable only upon enhancement. Constitutional bench principles from Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and K. S. Paripooman clarify that statutory additional benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 are unavailable if the high court merely confirms the collectors award without enhancement.
(B) Key principles include: (i) appellate courts confirming awards lack jurisdiction to grant statutory additional benefits; (ii) enhancement of compensation is a condition precedent to exercising power under sections 23(1-A) and 23(2); (iii) interest at prescribed rates applies to excess compensation; (iv) solatium and interest may be awarded on enhanced amounts; (v) dismissal of appeals results in no additional statutory entitlements.
Facts of the case:
The state acquired land, and the collector awarded compensation. The high court dismissed appeals against the award but granted additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, including interest and solatium. The state challenged this order.
Findings of Court:
The high court erred in awarding statutory additional benefits upon confirmation. Such powers attach only to enhancement under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28, which cannot be invoked if the original award is merely confirmed.
Issues:
Whether a high court confirming a collectors compensation award can grant additional statutory benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate confirmation of the collectors award without enhancement precludes the exercise of jurisdiction to award additional statutory benefits; however, solatium and interest on enhanced compensation may be permitted.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the additional benefits set aside, and the award of the district judge is upheld with modifications for solatium at 15% and interest at 6%.
G.K.BANSAL
( 1 ) THOUGH respondents have been served, none is appearing.
( 2 ) LEAVE granted.
( 3 ) THE award of the Additional District Judge is dated 2/3/1978. When the State had gone in appeal against the award, while dismissing the appeals, the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had granted additionalbenefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894. Sub-section (1 of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) envisages determination of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the acquired land. Ss. (I-A) envisages that "in addition" to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated @ 12 per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1 to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Ss. (2 also provides that "in addition" to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.
( 4 ) SECTION 28 envisages that if the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, it enjoins the court that the Collector "shall pay on such excess" compensation interest @ nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court. Under the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest @ 15 per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess.
( 5 ) IT would thus be seen that the legislative animation is clear that the civil court on reference under Section 18, or the High court or in some states the District Judge exercising appellate power under Section 54 or the civil court under Section 26, as the case may be, awards compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to award additional benefits envisaged in Ss. (1-A) of Section 23, Ss. (2 of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act. In other words, enhancement of the compensation in excess of the award of the Collector under Section 11 is a condition precedent to exercise the power to award statutory additional amounts envisaged under the aforesaid respective provisions on the excess compensation. If the High court dismisses the appeal confirming the award of the Collector or that of the civil court, then it has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory amount under the respective provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. This court held the same view in Union of India v. Pratap Kaur, State of maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and State of Punjab v. Babu Singh.
( 6 ) MOREOVER, the Constitution bench of this court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and K. S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala covered the entire gamut of controversy and entitlement under S. 23 (1-A), 23 (2 and 28.
( 7 ) THE High court, therefore, has no power to award the statutory benefits under S. 23 (1-A), 23 (2 and 28 while confirming the decree of the reference court. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the additional benefits awarded are set aside. However, the claimants are entitled to solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation made by the reference court. The award of the District Judge as confirmed by the high court stands upheld with the above modification. The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances without costs.