S. Prabh Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust And Ors.
- SCC(1996) 1 SCC 309
- Neutral1995 INSC 693
- SCR[1995] Supp (4) SCR 791
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a claimant remains in possession of acquired land after the Land Acquisition Officer's award, the claimant is not entitled to interest under Section 34 or Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of that Act, as these provisions are intended to compensate for the deprivation of enjoyment of property after possession is taken from the owner. Where land acquisition proceedings are pending on the date an amending statute comes into force, and the original award was made before that date, the claimant is entitled to the statutory benefits of the amending statute only if the proceedings were genuinely pending between the date the amendment was introduced in Parliament and the date it came into force, provided the claimant otherwise qualifies for such benefits. A claimant whose land has been acquired is entitled to solatium at 30 per annum under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation determined under the applicable amendments, notwithstanding that the claimant remained in possession of the acquired land after the original award.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. This Court while disposing of the matter by order dated July 20, 1988 directed that depending upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh , the payment of the interest and solatium would be determined. Since there the Constitution Bench had concluded that the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984 if the proceedings are pending before the Land Acquisition Officer or Civil Court between April 30, 1984, i.e., when the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was introduced on the floor of the Parliament and the date when the Act came into force in September 24, 1984. Admittedly, the award came to be made on August 30, 1982 and the supplementary award with regard to the trees etc., came to be made on December 27, 1982.
3. Under these circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to payment of solatium under Section 23(2) @ 30% per annum on enhanced compensation. As regards the payment of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of that Act, admittedly, the petitioner remained in possession of the acquired land. Under Sections 34, 28 and 23(1-A) payment of interest and additional amount was intended to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner by deprivation of enjoyment of their property, after possession was taken. Since the possession was admittedly with the petitioners, they are not entitled to payment of interest under Section 34, 28 or additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer will determine the amount of solatium payable to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and within six weeks thereafter the amount so determined would be paid to the petitioners. Before making the payment, the Petitions shall hand over the possession to the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. The petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free