Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2002
Stanes Higher Secondary School .. Appellant
Versus
Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition)Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu .. Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this
appeal are recapitulated as under:-
3. The land belonging to the appellant-School measuring
1 acre 7229 sq.ft. was acquired by the respondent by a2
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, [for short, `the Act']. The land which was being used as
the play ground of the school children was acquired for the
purpose of expansion of a road for Ladies' Super Market. The
possession of the land was taken on 21st November, 1975. The
lands are situated in the heart of Coimbatore City and very
close to the National Highway No. 47.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31st
December, 1981 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per
sq.ft. and awarded a sum of Rs.2,91,258/- towards cost of the
lands and 15% solatium.
5. The appellant-School aggrieved by the said award, made
a Reference to the Sub-Court, Coimbatore under Section 18 of
the Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of
Rs.30/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Court, Coimbatore, however, by a
comprehensive judgment fixed the compensation at the rate of3
Rs.20/- per sq.ft. along with solatium of 15 per cent. The
Court also awarded interest at the rate of 4 per cent per
annum from the date the possession was taken till payment
was made.
6. The respondent herein preferred an appeal being A.S. No.
218 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court
allowed the appeal and modified the decree reducing the
compensation to Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Further, the High Court
fixed the interest at the rate of 9 per cent and solatium at 30
per cent of the market value. The appellant-School, aggrieved
by 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 Act
was amended with effect from 24th September, 1984.
8. The un-amended Section 25, as it existed prior to 24th
September, 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 of
almost similar nature in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti etc.
v. Kanhaiya Lal & Others etc. (2000) 7 SCC 756. In this5
case, this Court relying on its earlier judgment in Gobardhan
Mahto v. State of Bihar (1979) 4 SCC 330, observed as
under:
"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 Acquisition
Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons (2002) 3
SCC 463, has clearly laid down in para 6, which reads as
under:
".......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, it6
would 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
