Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a notification and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are issued prior to 24th September, 1984, the unamended Section 25 applies to the proceedings, not the amended provision introduced by Act 68 of 1984, notwithstanding any proceedings in reference or appeal that continue after that date. The amended Section 25 is not retrospective and applies only to acquisitions made on or after 24th September, 1984.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2002Stanes Higher Secondary School .. AppellantVersusSpecial Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition)Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu .. RespondentJUDGMENTDalveer Bhandari, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of thisappeal are recapitulated as under:-3. The land belonging to the appellant-School measuring1 acre 7229 sq.ft. was acquired by the respondent by a2notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, [for short, `the Act']. The land which was being used asthe play ground of the school children was acquired for thepurpose of expansion of a road for Ladies' Super Market. Thepossession of the land was taken on 21st November, 1975. Thelands are situated in the heart of Coimbatore City and veryclose to the National Highway No. 47.4. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31stDecember, 1981 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- persq.ft. and awarded a sum of Rs.2,91,258/- towards cost of thelands and 15% solatium.5. The appellant-School aggrieved by the said award, madea Reference to the Sub-Court, Coimbatore under Section 18 ofthe Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate ofRs.30/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Court, Coimbatore, however, by acomprehensive judgment fixed the compensation at the rate of3Rs.20/- per sq.ft. along with solatium of 15 per cent. TheCourt also awarded interest at the rate of 4 per cent perannum from the date the possession was taken till paymentwas made.6. The respondent herein preferred an appeal being A.S. No.218 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The High Courtallowed the appeal and modified the decree reducing thecompensation to Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Further, the High Courtfixed the interest at the rate of 9 per cent and solatium at 30per cent of the market value. The appellant-School, aggrievedby the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court,preferred this appeal by way of special leave.7. It may be pertinent to mention that Section 25 of the Actwas amended with effect from 24th September, 1984.8. The un-amended Section 25, as it existed prior to 24thSeptember, 1984, stated as under:4"Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation:(1) When the applicant has made a claim tocompensation, pursuant to any notice given underSection 9, the amount awarded to him by the courtshall not exceed the amount so claimed or be lessthan the amount awarded by the Collector underSection 11.(2) When the applicant has refused to makesuch claim or has omitted without sufficient reason(to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim,the amount awarded by the court shall in no caseexceed the amount awarded by the Collector.(3) When the applicant has omitted for asufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) tomake such claim, the amount awarded to him bythe court shall not be less than, and may exceed,the amount awarded by the Collector."The amended Section 25 reads as under:"Section 25. Amount of compensationawarded by Court not to be lower than the amountawarded by the Collector.The amount of compensation awarded by theCourt shall not be less than the amount awarded bythe Collector under Section 11."9. This Court had an occasion to examine the controversy ofalmost similar nature in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti etc.v. Kanhaiya Lal & Others etc. (2000) 7 SCC 756. In this5case, this Court relying on its earlier judgment in GobardhanMahto v. State of Bihar (1979) 4 SCC 330, observed asunder:"Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 beforeits substitution by Act 68 of 1984, mandated thecourt not to award compensation exceeding theamount so claimed by the landowners and not to beless than the amount awarded by the Collector.This very clearly limits awarding of compensationwithin the amount claimed. On the facts of thepresent case it is not in dispute that the award itselfwas given on 27-12-1977 and even proceedingpursuant to referring order, was concluded on 28-2-1981, i.e., much prior to the aforesaid amendingAct. Thus, on the facts of this case it isunamended Section 25 to be applicable and not theamended section. In view of this the peripherallimitation on the court awarding the compensation,would equally apply to the High Court exercising itspower as the first appellate court."10. A three-judge bench of this Court in Land AcquisitionOfficer-cum-DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons (2002) 3SCC 463, has clearly laid down in para 6, which reads asunder:".......it is a well-settled principle of constructionthat a substantive provision cannot be retrospectivein nature unless the provision itself indicates thesame. The amended provision of Section 25nowhere indicates that the same would have anyretrospective effect. Consequently, therefore, it6would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to24-9-1984, the date on which Act 68 of 1984 cameinto force."11. In the instant case, admittedly, both the notification and
the award were issued prior to 24th September, 1984. The
parties are governed by an unamended provision of law.
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
12. In the present appeal, the land meant for the play ground
located in the heart of Coimbatore city and very close to
National Highway no. 47 was acquired by the respondent. The
amount of compensation has already been paid to the
appellant-School. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High Court is
modified and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate
to direct the respondent not to recover the amount of
compensation already paid to the appellant-School. 7
13. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear
...............................................J. [ DALVEER BHANDARI ]
................................................J. [ DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ] New Delhi, March 9, 2010
