{"id":138770,"date":"1991-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991"},"modified":"2018-11-09T19:04:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T13:34:19","slug":"union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR, Supl. (2) 478 1992 SCC (1) 673<\/div>\n
Author: M Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nZORA SINGH ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/11\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nMISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 478  1992 SCC  (1) 673\n JT 1991 (4)   538\t  1991 SCALE  (2)1128\n\n\nACT:\n    Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894--Section  23(1-A)--Benefit\nunder--Entitlement  of Land Acquisition\t Act,  1894--Section\n23(1-A)\t \"Award\"---Construction--\"Award\" whether `decree  ',\n\"Court\" whether \"Collector \".\n    Land  Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 23(1-A)  read\twith\nSection\t 30(1)(a)  of the Land\tAcquisition  Amendment\tAct,\n1984--Applicability  of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t lands of the respondent and other land owners\twere\nacquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\n    Notifications  under  sections 4 and 6 of the  Act\twere\npublished on 10.5.1979 and 27.3.1981 respectively.\n    The\t respondent  and other land owners  filed  Reference\nApplications u\/s 18 of the Act against the award before\t the\nDistrict Judge.\n    The\t District Judge classifying the acquired  land\tinto\nvarious\t grades awarded compensation and also granted  bene-\nfits u\/s 23(1-A) of the Act to the respondent and other land\nOwners. Hence, the State appealed to the High Court.\n    Those  land-owners,\t who  were not\tsatisfied  with\t the\ncompensation  awarded and those to whom benefit u\/s  23(1-A)\nwere not granted, also appealed to the High Court.\n    The\t Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the  grant\nof  benefits  u\/s 23(1-A) of the Act and also  granted\tsuch\nbenefits to those cases, where such benefits were not  given\nby the District Judge.\n    The\t State preferred the Letters Patent  Appeals  before\nthe  Division Bench of the High Court, contending  that\t the\nrespondent and\n479\nother  land owners were not entitled to the benefit of\tsec-\ntion 23(1-A) of the Act; that the section 23(1-A) was intro-\nduced by the Land Acquisition(Amendment) Act, 1984; that  as\nthe Collector had made his award on 31.3.1981 the provisions\nof  section  23(1-A) of the Act was not\t applicable  to\t the\ncases of the respondent and other land owners.\n    The\t Division  Bench  of the High  Court  dismissed\t the\nLetters\t Patent\t Appeals  of the State.\t Hence\tthe  present\nappeals by special leave were filed by the State before this\nCourt.\n    The parties before this Court made the same\t submissions\nwhich were made before the High Court.\nDismissing the appeal, (CA No.4568 of 1991) this Court,\n    HELD:    1.\t   A   perusal\t of   the   provisions\t  of\nsub-section(1-A) of section 23 makes it clear that the\tsaid\nsub-section  deals with substantive rights and it confers  a\nsubstantive right to claim the additional amount  calculated\nas set out in the said sub-section in the circumstances\t set\nout  therein. Similarly, sub-section(2) of Section  23\talso\nconfers\t a  substantive right on the claimant  to  a  higher\nsolatium. [486 E-F]\n    2.\t The  provisions of the Act,  being  substantive  in\nnature,\t can  have only prospective application\t unless\t the\nlanguage  in which the provisions are couched, read  in\t the\ncontext, shows that the intention of the legislature was  to\ngive  retrospective  effect to them. The  language  of\tsub-\nsection(1-A) of section 23 shows that a duty is cast on\t the\ncourt  to  award an amount calculated as stated\t therein  in\naddition  to the market value of the land acquired  for\t the\nperiod\tcommencing from the date of the publication of\tsec-\ntion  4 of the Notification to the date of the award of\t the\nCollector  or  the date of taking possession,  whichever  is\nearlier. [486 F-G]\n     3.\t  The  expression \"award\" used\tin  section  23(1-A)\nsuggests  that the intention of the legislature was to\tmake\nthe  provisions of the said sub-section applicable to  cases\nwhere  the Collector had yet to make his award or the  Trial\nCourt  hearing\tthe Reference under Section 18 of  the\tLand\nacquisition Act has still to make its award after the coming\ninto  force of the said sub-section on September  30,  1984.\n[486 H-487 A]\n480\n    4.\t The expression \"award\" is to be distinguished\tfrom\nthe  expression \"decree\" and hence, it appears that  in\t the\nabsence of any contrary or inconsistent provision in the Act\nthe  provisions of subsection(1-A) of section 23  would\t not\ncome into play where the awards had been made by the Collec-\ntor  earlier  as well as by the Reference Court but  on\t the\ndate  of  coming  into effect of the  said  sub-section,  an\nappeal\tfrom  the said award might have been  pending  in  a\ncourt.\tIn that case, the court would not be \"awarding\"\t any\namount\tbut would be making a \"decree\" for an  amount.\t[487\nB-C]\n    5.\t By reason of the provision of section\t30(1)(a)  of\nthe Amendment Act of 1984 the provisions of section  23(1-A)\nof the Act were, by a deeming provision, made also  applica-\nble  to every proceeding for the acquisition of\t land  under\nthe Act where the Collector had not made his award by.April,\n30,1982.  On a correct interpretation of the  provisions  of\nsection 23(1-A) read with section 30(1)(a) of the  Amendment\nAct  of 1984, an additional amount calculated in the  manner\nindicated in section 23(1-A) is also payable in those  cases\nwhere  the  Collector had not made his award  on  or  before\nApril  30,1982,\t but  the Court might have  made  its  award\nbefore September 24,1984. [487 D-E]\n    6.\t The construction that is being given to the  provi-\nsions  of  section 23(1-A) and section 30(1)(a) will,  in  a\nsense,\tlimit  the benefits strictly  conferred\t by  section\n30(1)(a) to only those cases, where the Collector as well as\nthe  Court have made their respective awards  between  April\n30,1982\t and September 24, 1984. That cannot be\t helped,  as\nthat is the result of the plain grammatical construction  of\nthe clear language used in the relevant provisions. [487  E-\nF]\n    7.\tThe Court would not be justified in giving an unduly\nrestricted  meaning  to the provisions\tof  section  23(1-A)\nunwarranted  by the plain language of the sub-section.\t[487\nF]\n    8.\tSection 23(1-A) refers clearly to the duties of\t the\ncourt. The court is defined by section 3(d) as the principal\ncourt of original jurisdiction, except in the  circumstances\nset  out  in the said subsection, which would be  the  court\nhaving jurisdiction to decide the reference under section 18\nof  the Act. There, is therefore, no warrant to read in\t the\nplace  of  the\tword \"Court\" in\t Section  23(1-A)  the\tword\n\"Collector\".  Moreover, the decision of such a court  deter-\nmining\tcompensation is regarded as an award under the\tAct.\nIn the light of the provisions, there is no warrant to\tgive\nan unduly restricted meaning to section 23(1-A) of the\tAct.\n[487 G-488 A]\n481\n    9.\tOn the plain language of section 23(1-A) itself, the\nduty  was  cast on the court to award an  additional  amount\ncalculated as prescribed therein which would mean that\tsuch\namount\tis directed to be awarded by the court, namely,\t the\nReference court, in all cases which are pending before\tthat\ncourt on September 1, 1984. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 30\nlays down that the provisions of section 23(1-A) of the\t Act\nare also made applicable to all proceedings for the acquisi-\ntion  of  any  land  under the said  Act  pending  on  April\n30,1982,  where\t no  award had been made  by  the  Collector\nbefore\tthat  date.  At first glance this  would  appear  to\nsuggest\t that the additional amount referred to\t in  section\n23(1-A)\t could not be awarded where the Collector  had\tmade\nhis award before April 30,1982. But this provision cannot be\nallowed to cut down the benefits available to the  claimants\non  a plain reading of section 23(t-A). This is\t clear\tfrom\nthe  use of the word \"also\" in the opening part\t of  section\n30(1). [489 E-H]\n    10. In the present case as the Reference court has\tmade\nits award after September 24,1984 the benefit of the  provi-\nsions of Section 23(1-A) was clearly available to the claim-\nant. [491 D]\n    Jaiwant  Laxman  P.Sardesai etc. v. Government  of\tGoa,\nDaman  and Diu and Another etc., AIR 1987  Bombay  214(F.B.)\nand Union of India & Others v. Filip Tiago De Gama of<\/a>  lied-\nera Vasco De Gains, [1990] 1 SCC 277, overruled..\n    State  of  Punjab v. Krishan Lal, AIR<\/a>  1987\t Punjab\t and\nHaryana\t 222(F.B.);  and Maya Devi and Others v.  The  Union\nTerritory  of Chandigarh, 1988 Punjab Law Journal  189,\t ap-\nproved.\n    Union  of  India  and ,Another etc.\t v.  Raghuvir  Singh\n(dead) by Lrs. etc., [1989] 2 SCC 754; K. Kamala  Jammannia-\nvaru  v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [1985] I SCC\t 582\nand  Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,<\/a>  [1985]  3\nSCC 737, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4568 of
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.89 of the  Punjab
\n& Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1251 of 1987.
\nWITH
\nCA Nos 4569 – 4686\/91
\n482<\/span>
\n    M.\tChandra Sekhar, Additional Solicitor  General,\tG.L.
\nSanghi, Hatbans Lal, Har Dev Singh, S.P. Goyal, Harinder Pal
\nSingh,\tMs. Naresh Bakshi, S.M. Sarin, P.N. Puff, M.K.\tDua,
\nMs. Madhu Moolchandani, Manoj Swamp, Dr.(Ms.) Meera Agarwal,
\nR.C. Mishra, M.N. Krislmamam, K.P. Sunder Rao, Attar  Singh,
\nS.N.  Terdal,  Hemant Sharma, T.C. Sharma,  N.D.  Garg,\t Ms.
\nKusum Chowdhary and S.P. Sarin for the appearing parties.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKANIA, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    Counsel heard. As the controversy before us is a limited
\none and relates only to the question of granting of  benefit
\nof  the\t provisions of Section 23(1-A) introduced  into\t the
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as\t“the
\nsaid  Act”) by the Land Acquisition (Amendment)\t Act,  1984,
\n(referred  to  hereinafter as “the Amendment Act  of  1984”)
\nonly  a few facts are necessary for the appreciation of\t the
\nsubmissions made before us.\n<\/p>\n
    This appeal, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No, 14297  of
\n1990 by Special Leave, is directed against the judgment of a
\nDivision  Bench\t of  the Punjab and Haryana  High  Court  in
\nLetters\t Patent\t Appeal No.1251 of 1987. The  other  appeals
\nbefore us are connected appeals filed by the Union of  India
\nor the claimants. The respondent was the owner of a piece of
\nland in one of the villages in District Bhatinda in  Punjab.
\nLand admeasuring 74375 acres situated in various villages in
\nBhatinda  District including the land of the respondent\t was
\nacquired by the appellants under the said Act.
\n\tThe Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said
\nAct  were published on May 10,1979 and March 27,  1981,\t re-
\nspectively. The Special Land Collector made and declared his
\naward  of compensation in respect of the acquisition of\t the
\nsaid land and several other plots of land on March  31,1981.
\nBeing aggrieved by the said award, the respondent and other
\nlandowners filed Reference applications under Section 18  of
\nthe  said  Act which were decided by  the  learned  District
\nJudge  concerned  in 1985 and 1986. The\t land  acquired\t was
\nclassified  into  various grades  and  compensation  awarded
\naccordingly. In the case before us and several other similar
\ncases  the  benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the  said\t Act
\nwere  granted to the land-owners. The State appealed to\t the
\nHigh  Court.  In several other cases where the\tland  owners
\nwere not satisfied with the compensation awarded,  including
\nthe  cases where the benefits conferred by  Section  23(1-A)
\nwere  not awarded the land owners filed appeals\t before\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
483<\/span><\/p>\n
\t What is relevant for our purpose is that a  learned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court confirmed the grant of  bene-
\nfits  under Section 23(1-A)of the said Act where such  bene-
\nfits  had  been granted by the learned\tDistrict  Judge\t and
\nawarded the same where that had not been done by the learned
\nDistrict  Judge.  Letters Patent Appeals were filed  by\t the
\nState  being dissatisfied with the judgment of\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  was\t submitted on behalf of the Union  of  India
\nbefore\tthe Division Bench deciding the Letters\t Patent\t Ap-
\npeals  that the claimants\/land owners  were not entitled  to
\nthe benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the said Act introduced by
\nthe said Amendment Act, 1984 as aforestated. It was  submit-
\nted on behalf of the appellants that the right to get  addi-
\ntional\tamount at the rate of 12% per annum on the  enhanced
\namount\tof compensation from the date of Notification  under
\nSection 4 of the said Act and till the date of the award  of
\nthe Collector or the date of taking possession whichever  is
\nearlier conferred under the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of
\nthe said Act was available only in cases where the Collector
\nmade  his  award after 30th  day of April, 1982,  being\t the
\ndate of the introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
\nBill,  1982  in\t the House of the  People,  whereas  in\t the
\npresent case, the Collector had made his award on March\t 31,
\n1981. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of a Full Bench of
\nthe  Punjab  and  Haryana High Court in State of  Punjab  v.
\nKrishan\t Lal, AIR<\/a> (1987) Punjab and Haryana, 222. The  Divi-
\nsion Bench repelled this contention and pointed out that the
\nlearned\t Chief\tJustice H.N. Seth, who spoke  for  the\tFull
\nBench  in  Krishan  Lal’s case (supra)\thad  explained\tthat
\njudgment  in the  subsequent decision rendered in Maya\tDevi
\nand Others v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, Punjab\t Law
\nJournal (1988) 189. and pointed out that the land owner\t was
\nentitled to the additional amount in terms of Section  23(1-
\nA)  of\tthe  Amendment Act of 1984 if  the  proceedings\t for
\ndetermination  of compensation were decided after  September
\n24, 1984,  and since the Regular First Appeal in respect  of
\nthe  proceedings for determination of the  compensation\t was
\ndecided\t after September 24, 1984, the\tCourt while  adjudi-
\ncating upon the amount of compensation payable to the claim-
\nant  was  bound to grant the additional amount in  terms  of
\nSection\t 23(1-A) of the said Act. The Division Bench in\t its
\nimpugned  judgment  gave to the claimant the benefit of\t the
\nadded  amount  referred to in Section  23(1-A) of  the\tsaid
\nAct.  The same submissions have been made on behalf  of\t the
\nrespective parties before us.\n<\/p>\n
\t Before discussing the submissions of the respective
\nparties,  it would not be out of place to set out the  rele-
\nvant provisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t The  said  Act, namely, the Land  Acquisition\tAct,
\n1894, provides for compulsory acquisition of land. The\tterm
\n‘Award’ has not been defined in
\n484<\/span>
\nthe  said Act. Sub-clause (d) of Section 3,  the  definition
\nsection, defines the expression ‘Court’ as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(d)the  expression ‘Court’ means a  principal
\n\t      Civil  Court of original jurisdiction,  unless
\n\t      the  appropriate Government has appointed,  as
\n\t      it is hereby empowered to do, a special  judi-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      cial officer within any specified local limits
\n\t      to  perform  the function of the\tCourt  under
\n\t      this Act.’
\n    Part  II  of  the said Act deals with  the\tquestion  of
\nacquisition  of land. Section 11 of the said Act deals\twith
\nthe  enquiry  and award of compensation\t by  the  Collector.
\nSection\t 11-A which was introduced into the said Act by\t the
\nLand  Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No.68 of  1984)
\nprovides  for  the period within which the  award  shall  be
\nmade. Generally speaking, it prescribes that the period\t for
\nmaking\tthe award is limited to two years, and\tthe  section
\nprovides that, if the award is not made within that  period,
\nthe entire proceedings for acquisition of land shall  lapse.
\nThere  is a proviso to the said section and an\tExplanation,
\nbut it is not necessary to consider the same for the purpose
\nof this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 which is includ-
\ned in Part III of the said Act runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “18. Reference to Court-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (1)\t Any person interested who  has\t not
\n\t      accepted the award may, by written application
\n\t      to  the Collector, require that the matter  be
\n\t      referred\tby the Collector for the  determina-
\n\t      tion of the Court, whether his objection be to
\n\t      the  measurement\tof the land, the  amount  of
\n\t      compensation,  the person to whom it  is\tpay-
\n\t      able, or the apportionment of the compensation
\n\t      among the persons interested.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Section  23 deals with the matters to be  considered  by
\nthe Court for determining the compensation to be awarded for
\nthe  land acquired under the said Act. We may  mention\there
\nthat under the general scheme of the said Act, the landowner
\nwhose  land  has been acquired is entitled to  be  paid\t the
\nmarket-value of the land acquired as prevailing at the\ttime
\nof  the\t publication  of the notification  under  Section  4
\nissued together with the solatium at the prescribed rate  in
\nconsideration  of the compulsory nature of the\tacquisition.
\nPrior to the coming into effect of the Amendment Act of 1984
\nsolatium was fixed at the rate of 15 per centum. Sub-section
\n(1-A)  which was introduced into Section 23 of the said\t Act
\nby the Amendment Act of 1984 runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In addition to the market value of the  land,
\n\t      as  above provided, the Court shall  in  every
\n\t      case award an amount calcu-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      485<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      lated  at\t the rate of twelve per\t centum\t per
\n\t      annum  on\t such market-value  for\t the  period
\n\t      commencing on and from the date of the  publi-
\n\t      cation  of the notification under\t Section  4,
\n\t      subsection (1), in respect of such land to the
\n\t      date of the award of the Collector or the date
\n\t      of taking possession of the land, whichever is
\n\t      earlier.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    By the said Amendment Act of 1984 the expression “thirty
\nper  centum”  was  substituted in place\t of  the  expression
\n“fifteen per centum” in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the
\nsaid Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 now runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)  In addition to the market-value  of\t the
\n\t      land,  as above provided, the Court  shall  in
\n\t      every case award a sum of thirty per centum on
\n\t      such  market-value,  in consideration  of\t the
\n\t      compulsory nature of the acquisition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
.lmo
\n    These  amendments were effected in the Land\t Acquisition
\nAct (the said Act) by the Land Acquisition (Amendment)\tAct,
\n1984,  (“the  Amendment Act of 1984”) as  set  out  earlier.
\nSub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 30 of the Amendment\t Act
\nof 1984 run as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “30 Transitional Provisions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)  The\tprovisions of sub-section  (1-A)  of
\n\t      Section  23 of the principal Act, as  inserted
\n\t      by Clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall
\n\t      apply,  and shall be deemed to  have  applied,
\n\t      also to, and in relation to,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (a) every proceedings for the acquisition
\n\t      of any land under the principal Act pending on
\n\t      the 30th day of April, 1982 the date of intro-
\n\t      duction  of the Land  Acquisition\t (Amendment)
\n\t      Bill,  1982,  in the House of the\t People,  in
\n\t      which no award has been made by the  Collector
\n\t      before that date;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (b) every proceeding for the\t acquisition
\n\t      of any land under the principal Act  commenced
\n\t      after  that date, whether or not an award\t has
\n\t      been  made  by the Collector before  the\tcom-
\n\t      mencement of this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  The\tprovisions  of\tsub-section  (2)  of
\n\t      Section  23  and Section 28 of  the  principal
\n\t      Act,  as amended by Clause (b) of\t Section  15
\n\t      and Section 18 of this Act respectively  shall
\n\t      apply,  and shall be deemed to  have  applied,
\n\t      also to, and in relation to, any award made by
\n\t      the Collector or Court or to any order  passed
\n\t      by  the High Court or Supreme Court in  appeal
\n\t      against
\n\t      486<\/span>
\n\t      any  such\t award under the provisions  of\t the
\n\t      principal\t Act  later the 30th day  of  April,
\n\t      1982,  the  date of introduction of  the\tLand
\n\t      Acquisition  (Amendment)\tBill. 1982,  in\t the
\n\t      House  of the People and before the  commence-
\n\t      ment of this Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (emphasis supplied by us)
\n    On\tbehalf\tof  the appellants reliance  was  placed  by
\nlearned\t Counsel on the decision of this Court in  Union  of
\nIndia  and Others v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem  Vasco  De
\nGama,<\/a>  [1990] 1 SCC 277. The respondent, on the other  hand,
\nplaced\tstrong reliance on the decision of a Full  Bench  of
\nthe Bombay High Court in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and etc.
\nv.  Government of Goa, Daman Diu and Another etc,  AIR\t1987
\nBombay\t214. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment  of\t the
\nBombay High Court it was submitted by the  respondent\/claim-
\nant  that a wide and liberal interpretation should be  given
\nto the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of section 23 and the
\namount calculated as set out in the said sub-section awarded
\nin  all cases where any proceeding was pending in any  court
\nincluding  the High Court or this Court in  connection\twith
\nthe determination of compensation for the land acquired.  We
\nmay  mention that both the parties referred us to the  deci-
\nsion of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India
\nand  Another  etc:.  v. Raghuvir Singh (dead)  by  Lrs\tetc,
\n[1989]\t2 SCC 754. We propose to discuss these\tdecisions  a
\nlittle later but before doing so, we propose to analyse\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the said Act and the effect thereof.
\n    A  perusal\tof the provisions of  sub-section  (1-A)  of
\nSection\t 23 makes it clear that the said  sub-section  deals
\nwith  substantive rights and it confers a substantive  right
\nto claim the additional amount calculated as set out in\t the
\nsaid  sub-section  in  the circumstances  set  out  therein.
\nSimilarly,  sub-section\t (2) of Section 23  also  confers  a
\nsubstantive  right  on the claimant to\ta  higher  solatium.
\nUnder  the  well-settled rules of interpretation,  the\tsaid
\nprovisions of the said Act, being substantive in nature, can
\nhave  only  prospective application unless the\tlanguage  in
\nwhich the provisions are couched, read in the context, shows
\nthat the intention of the legislature was to give retrospec-
\ntive  effect  to them. The language of sub-section  (lA)  of
\nSection\t 23 shows that a duty is cast on the court tO  award
\nan  amount calculated as stated therein in addition  to\t the
\nmarket value of the land acquired for the period  commencing
\nfrom the date of the publication of the Section 4  Notifica-
\ntion  to the date of the award of the Collector or the\tdate
\nof taking possession, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)
\nThe  expression\t “award” used in section 23  (I-A)  suggests
\nthat the
\n487<\/span>
\nintention  of the legislature was to make the provisions  of
\nthe said subsection applicable to cases where the  Collector
\nhad  yet  to make his award or the Trial Court\theating\t the
\nReference  under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act\t had
\nstill  to make its award after the coming into force of\t the
\nsaid  sub-section  on  September 30,  1984.  The  expression
\n“award” is to be distinguished from the expression  “decree”
\nand hence, it appears that in the absence of any contrary or
\ninconsistent  provision\t in the said Act the  provisions  of
\nsub-section  would  not come into play where the  award\t had
\nbeen made by the Collector earlier as well as by the  Refer-
\nence  Court but\t  ton the date of coming into effect of\t the
\nsaid sub-section, an appeal from  the said award might\thave
\nbeen  pending in a court. In that case, the Court would\t not
\nbe “awarding” any amount but would be making a “decree”\t for
\nan amount.\n<\/p>\n
     By\t reason of the provision of section 30(1)(a) of\t the
\nAmendment  Act of 1984 the provisions of section 23(1-A)  of
\nthe  said  Act were, by a deeming provision, made  also\t ap-
\nplicable  to  every proceeding for the acquisition  of\tland
\nunder  the  said Act where the Collector had  not  made\t his
\naward  by April 30,1982. On a correct interpretation of\t the
\nprovisions of section 23 (1-A) read with section 30(1)(a) of
\nthe  Amendment Act of 1984, an additional amount  calculated
\nin  the manner indicated in section 23(1-A) is also  payable
\nin those cases where the Collector had not made his award on
\nor  before  April 30, 1982, even in cases  where  the  court
\nmight have made its award before September 24, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  true  that the aforesaid  construction  we\t are
\ngiving\tto  the provisions of Section  23(1-A)\tand  Section
\n30(1)(a)  will,\t in  a sense, limit  the  benefits  strictly
\nconferred by Section 30(1)(a) to only those cases where\t the
\nCollector  as well as the Court have made  their  respective
\nawards between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 but, in
\nour view, that cannot be helped as that is the result of the
\nplain grammatical construction of the clear language used in
\nthe relevant provisions. We are of the opinion that we would
\nnot  be justified in giving an unduly restricted meaning  to
\nthe  provisions of Section 23(1-A) unwarranted by the  plain
\nlanguage of that sub-section as appears to have been done in
\nthe case of Union of India and Others v. Filip Tiago De Gama
\nof Vedem Vasco De Gama<\/a> discussed more particularly hereinaf-
\nter,  in order to give a wider meaning of the provisions  of
\nSection\t 30(1)(a).  Section 23(1-A) refers  clearly  to\t the
\nduties\tof  the Court. As we have already pointed  out,\t the
\ncourt  is defined by Section 3(d) as the principal court  of
\noriginal  jurisdiction, except in the circumstances set\t out
\nin  the\t said sub-section, which would be the  court  having
\njurisdiction to decide the reference under Section 18 of the
\nsaid  Act.  There, is therefore, no warrant to read  in\t the
\nplace of the word
\n488<\/span>
\n“Court”\t in Section 23(1-A) the word “Collector”.  Moreover,
\nthe  decision  of such a court determining  compensation  is
\nregarded  as  an award under the said Act. In the  light  of
\nthese  provisions,  there is no warrant to  give  an  unduly
\nrestricted  meaning to Section 23(1-A) of the said  Act,  as
\npointed out above.\n<\/p>\n
    Coming now to the decisions cited before us we find that
\nin the case before the Full Bench of the Bench of the Bombay
\nHigh Court in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and etc. v. Govern-
\nment of Goa, Daman and Diu and Another etc. (AIR 1987 Bombay\n<\/p>\n
214) the facts were that the Notification under Section 4 of
\nthe  said Act was published on October 3, 1969, in the\tGov-
\nernment\t Gazette of the Government of Goa. The\tNotification
\nunder  Section\t6 was published on June 10,  1971  The\tLand
\nAcquisition  Officer declared his award on August  2,  1972.
\nAll  these  events undoubtedly occurred prior to  April\t 30,
\n1982.  However, on a Reference made under Section 18 of\t the
\nsaid Act on December 24, 1973, the Civil Court\tinvestigated
\nthe  claim  and gave its award on June 24, 1985.  The  award
\nwas, therefore, made by the Court not before April 30, 1982,
\nbut  after  September 30, 1984, when the provisions  of\t the
\nLand  Acquisition  (Amendment) Act, 1984, had  already\tcome
\ninto  effect.  It  was, therefore,  strictly  speaking,\t not
\nnecessary  for the court to make any  observation  regarding
\nthe  legal  position in a case where both the  Collector  as
\nwell  as the Court in a Reference under Section 18 had\tmade
\ntheir  respective awards before April 30,1982. Moreover,  we
\nfind  that  the judgment appears to proceed  on\t a  somewhat
\nunwarranted  assumption.  This is clear from  the  following
\nobservations  which appear at paragraph 5 of  the  aforesaid
\nReport (p 217):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is not in dispute that where on the\tdate
\n\t      of  the commencement of the amending  Act\t any
\n\t      proceedings for determination of\tcompensation
\n\t      were  pending before the Collector under\tSec-
\n\t      tion  11 of the Act or before the Court  under
\n\t      reference\t under\tSection\t 18 of\tthe  Act  or
\n\t      before the High Court in appeal under  Section
\n\t      54  of  the Act, then the amended\t section  23
\n\t      (I-A) would be applicable to such proceedings,
\n\t      in absence of subsection (1) of Section 30.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In our view, it was erroneously taken as undisputed that
\nhad the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 30 not been
\nin existence, the provisions of the amended section  23(1-A)
\nwould have applied to a case where the Collector as well  as
\nthe  Court  had already made their award  before  April\t 30,
\n1982,  but an appeal was pending in the High Court on  April
\n30,  1982,  or on the commencement of the  Land\t Acquisition
\n(Amendment)  Act. As we have already pointed out,  the\tcor-
\nrectness of this as-\n<\/p>\n
489<\/span><\/p>\n
sumption is very much in dispute before us. In these circum-
\nstances,  we find ourselves unable to accept as correct\t the
\nview taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court to the
\nextent\tthat it extends the operation of the  provisions  of
\nsection 23(1-A) even to cases where the Collector as well as
\nthe  Reference Court had made their awards before April\t 30,
\n11982, in the case before the Full Bench of the Bombay\tHigh
\nCourt  in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and etc. v.  Government
\nof Goa, Daman and Diu and Another etc., AIR 1987 Bombay 214.
\n    As\tfar as the decision of a Division  Bench  comprising
\ntwo  learned  Judges  of this Court in Union  of  India\t and
\nOthers v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama<\/a>  [1990]
\n1  S.C.C.  277\tstrongly relied upon by\t the  appellants  is
\nconcerned,  we find that in that case the  Land\t Acquisition
\nOfficer made his award determining the compensation on March
\n5,  1969.  On a reference under Section 18 the\tCivil  Court
\nmade its award on May 28, 1985, that is, even after  Septem-
\nber  24,1984, when the Amendment Act of 1984 came  into\t ef-
\nfect.  The view taken by the Division Bench is that, as\t the
\nCollector had made his award before April 30, 1982, then the
\nadditional amount referred to in section 23 (1-A) could\t not
\nbe awarded. This view has been taken on the basis that\tsub-
\nsection\t (1)(b) of Section 30 of the said Act provides\tthat
\nthe  provisions\t of section 23(1-A) shall be  applicable  to
\nevery  acquisition  proceeding commenced after\tApril  3  O,
\n1982,  irrespective  of the fact whether the  Collector\t has
\nmade  the  award on or before September 24, 1984,  and\tthat
\nsub-section (1) of Section 30 does not refer to court  award
\nand  the  court\t award is used only in\tsub-section  (2)  of
\nSection\t 30. (See para 21 of the said report). We find\tthat
\non  the plain language of section 23(1-A) itself,  which  we
\nhave  set  out earlier, the duty was cast on  the  Court  to
\naward an additional amount calculated as prescribed  therein
\nwhich  would mean that it is directed to be awarded  by\t the
\ncourt,\tnamely, the Reference Court, in all cases which\t are
\npending\t before that court on September 1,1984.\t Sub-section
\n(1)(a)\tof Section 30 undoubtedly lays down that the  provi-
\nsions of section 23(1-A) of the Act are also made applicable
\nto all proceedings for the acquisition of any land under the
\nsaid Act pending on April 30, 1982, where no award had\tbeen
\nmade by the Collector before that date. At first glance this
\nwould appear to suggest that the additional amount  referred
\nto  in section 23 (1-A) could not be awarded where the\tCol-
\nlector\thad made his award before April 30, 1982.  But\tthis
\nprovision cannot be allowed to cut down the benefits  avail-
\nable to the claimants on a plain reading of section 23(1-A).
\nThis is clear from the use of the word “also” in the opening
\npan of section 30(1). In our opinion, the view taken by\t the
\nBench  comprising two learned Judges of this Court  in\tthat
\ncase  cannot be accepted as correct as it is too narrow\t and
\nunduly\tcuts  down the operation of  the  benefit  conferred
\nunder the
\n490<\/span>
\nplain  language of section 23 (1-A) of the said Act. As\t far
\nas the provisions of section 30(2) are concerned, we do\t not
\nfeel  that we are called upon to interpret the same in\tthis
\ndecision.  In our view, therefore, the said decision  cannot
\nbe  accepted as good law in so far as it lays down  that  in
\norder to bring the provisions of section 23(1-A) of the said
\nAct  into play the Collector must have made his award  after
\nApril 30, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
    Coming to the decision in Union of India and Another  v.
\nRaghuvir  Singh<\/a> (dead) by Lrs. (Supra) referred to  earlier,
\nwe find that it mainly concerned itself with the  provisions
\nof section 30(2) of the said Amendment Act with which we are
\nnot  directly  concerned here and in  that  connection,\t the
\nConstitution  Bench  of this Court has\tmade  the  following
\nobservations (p. 779):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  construing section 30(2), it is  just  as
\n\t      well  to be clear that the award made  by\t the
\n\t      Collector\t referred to here is the award\tmade
\n\t      by  the  Collector  under Section\t 11  of\t the
\n\t      parent Act, and the award made by the Court is
\n\t      the  award  made by Principal Civil  Court  of
\n\t      Original Jurisdiction under Section 23 of\t the
\n\t      parent  Act on a reference made to it  by\t the
\n\t      Collector under Section 19 of the parent\tAct.
\n\t      There can be no doubt that the benefit of\t the
\n\t      enhanced solatium is intended by section 30(2)
\n\t      in  respect of an award made by the  collector
\n\t      between  April  30, 1982,\t and  September\t 24,
\n\t      1984,  Likewise  the benefit of  the  enhanced
\n\t      solatium\tis extended by section 30(2) to\t the
\n\t      case  of\tan award made by the  Court  between
\n\t      April  30, 1982, and September 24, 1984,\teven
\n\t      though it be upon reference from an award made
\n\t      before April 30, 1982.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The Court went on to point out that (p.780):
\n\t      “Section\t30(2) of the Amendment\tAct  extends
\n\t      the benefit c. the enhanced solatium to  cases
\n\t      where  the  award by the Collector or  by\t the
\n\t      Court  is\t made between April  30,  1982,\t and
\n\t      September 24, 1984, or to appeals against such
\n\t      awards  decided  by  the High  Court  and\t the
\n\t      Supreme  Court  whether the decisions  of\t the
\n\t      High  Court or the Supreme Court are  rendered
\n\t      before September 24, 1984, or after that date.
\n\t      All that is material is that the award (empha-
\n\t      sis supplied) by the Collector or by the Court
\n\t      should have been made between April 30,  1982,
\n\t      and  September 24, 1984. We find ourselves  in
\n\t      agreement with the conclusion reached by\tthis
\n\t      Court  in\t K. Kamalajammanniavaru\t v.  Special
\n\t      Land Acquisition Officer, (1985) 1 SCC 582 and
\n\t      491<\/span>
\n\t      find  ourselves unable to agree with the\tview
\n\t      taken  in\t Bhag Singh v.\tUnion  Territory  of
\n\t      Chandigarh<\/a>  [1985]  3 SCC\t 737.  The  expanded
\n\t      meaning given to section 30 (2) in the  latter
\n\t      case does not, in our opinion, flow reasonably
\n\t      from  the\t language of  that  sub-section.  It
\n\t      seems  to us that the learned Judges  in\tthat
\n\t      case  missed  the\t significance  of  the\tword
\n\t      ‘such’ in the collocation ‘any such award’  in
\n\t      section  30(2). Due significance must  be\t at-
\n\t      tached  to that word, and to our mind it\tmust
\n\t      necessarily  intended that the appeal  to\t the
\n\t      High Court or the Supreme Court, in which\t the
\n\t      benefit  of  the enhanced solatium  is  to  be
\n\t      given,  must be confined to an appeal  against
\n\t      an  award\t of the Collector or  of  the  Court
\n\t      rendered between April 30, 1982, and September
\n\t      24, 1984.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We\tfind  that  this decision which was  rendered  by  a
\nConstitution Bench of this Court comprising 5-learned Judges
\nruns in no way counter to the view which we have taken\tand,
\nin  fact,  it leads some support to the view  which  we\t are
\ntaking.\t In the case before us, as the Reference  Court\t has
\nmade  its award after September 24, 1984 the benefit of\t the
\nprovisions  of section 23(1-A) was clearly available to\t the
\nclaimant as held in the impugned judgment.
\n    In\tthe result, the appeal arising out of Special  Leave
\nPetition (Civil) No.14297 of 1990 in Union of India v.\tZora
\nSingh<\/a> must be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
    As far as the other appeals filed by the Union of  India
\nwhich  have been heard together with the Zora  Singh’s\tcase
\nare  concerned, learned Counsel for the Union of  India\t has
\nnot  drawn our attention to any material difference  in\t the
\nrelevant facts therein from the facts in Zora Singh’s  case.
\nIn fact, the arguments proceeded on the footing that all the
\nrelevant  facts were the same as in the case of Zora  Singh.
\nIn  a  result,\tall these appeals must\talso  be  dismissed,
\nhowever, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t far as the appeals before us which have been  filed
\nby  the\t claimants are concerned, the same will have  to  be
\nplaced before appropriate Benches of this Court for disposal
\nin the light of this decision.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeals\tdis-\nmissed.\n492<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR, Supl. (2) 478 1992 SCC (1) 673 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: ZORA SINGH ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/11\/1991 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\"},\"wordCount\":4399,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991","datePublished":"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991"},"wordCount":4399,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991","name":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T13:34:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-etc-etc-vs-zora-singh-etc-etc-on-22-november-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}