The State Of Punjab vs Des Raj
- SCC(1996) 4 SCC 557
- Neutral1996 INSC 546
- SCR[1996] Supp (1) SCR 562
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is determined by the Reference Court prior to the date on which an amending Act comes into force, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced provisions introduced by that amendment; instead, the claimant is entitled only to solatium and interest as provided in the unamended sections applicable at the date the Reference Court made its determination.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the 'Act'] was published on March 11, 1978 acquiring 55 acres 5 kanals 1 marla for construction of new Mandi at Jalalabad. The Collector in his award dated March 13, 1978 determined the compensation at Rs.4500/- per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated March 19, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/- per acre and R5.20,000/-per acre on the basis of belting. The learned single Judge by his judgment and decree dated December 2, 1988 further enhanced the compensation to Rs.43,000/- and Rs.34,000/- per acre on belting basis, but applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the applicability of Sections 23 (2), 28 and 23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the reference Court determined the compensation on March 19, 1982, i.e., prior to the introduction of the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount under section 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) respectively of the Act.
It is brought to our notice that dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation of Rs.43,000/- per acre, the claimant has filed Letters Patent Appeal and that it is pending. If that is so, we need not go into the question whether determination of the compensation by the learned single Judge at Rs.43,000/- per acre is justified or not. The matter is left open. The Division Bench would be free to decide the matter according to law. But as regards the applicability of the amended provisions, in view of the above facts, the learned single Judge was clearly in error in extending the additional benefits under the amended provisions of the Act.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order awarding 30% solatium, 9% interest from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter 15% interest and also the additional amount of 12% per annum under section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimant is entitled to 15% solatium under section 23 (2) and 6% interest under Section 28 as unamended, on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit into Court. 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