PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGIR SINGH ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 626 JT 1995 (9) 1 1995 SCALE (6)314 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though respondents have been served, none is appearing.
Leave granted.
The award of the Additional District Judge is dated
March 2, 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 additional benefits
under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894. Sub-
section (1) of s.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, ‘the Act’) envisages determination of the amount of
compensation to be awarded to the amount of compensation to
be awarded to the acquired land. Sub-section (1A) 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 s.4(1) to the date of
the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession
of the land, whichever is earlier. Sub-section (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.
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
dated of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount
of such excess.
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 District Judge exercising
appellate power under s.54 or 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 sub-
section (1A) of s.23, sub-section (2) of s.23 and s.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 amount 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 vs.
Smt. Pratap (Kaur) through Lrs. & Anr. etc. [J.T. 1995 (2)
SC 569], State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar
[J.T. 1995 (2) SC 583] and The State of Punjab * Anr. etc.
vs. Babu Singh & Ors. etc., [CA Nos. 3287-95/95 @ SLP (C)
No. 2207-15 of 1979] decided on February 28, 1995.
Moreover, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union
of India vs. Raghubir Singh [1989 (2) SCC 754] and K.S.
Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala [1994 (5) SCC 593] covered
the entire gamut of controversy and entitlement under
Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28.
The High Court, therefore, has no power to award the
statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 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.