Holding

Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, applies only to acquisitions based on a notification under Section 4 issued on or after 24‑September‑1984 or to proceedings falling within the two specific categories of Section 30(1); otherwise the benefit of additional compensation is unavailable.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the award of additional compensation under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming it should apply to their case where the acquisition proceedings began before the 1984 amendment but the court award was rendered after the amendment came into force. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 23(1‑A) and the limited retrospective provisions in Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It held that the benefit of Section 23(1‑A) is available only where the acquisition is based on a notification under Section 4 issued on or after 24‑September‑1984, or where the proceeding falls within the two categories specified in Section 30(1). Since the petitioners' acquisition was notified in 1978 and the Collector's award was made in 1980, their case does not meet either condition. Consequently, the additional compensation under Section 23(1‑A) is not applicable. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration of the earlier Zora Singh decision. The order was to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquisitions initiated before the 1984 amendment but with court awards rendered after the amendment.
Whether Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, confers limited retrospective effect to Section 23(1‑A) in the petitioners' case.
The interpretation of the term "court" and "award" in Section 23(1‑A) with respect to High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 1(2), s. 15, s. 18, s. 23(1), s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 24, s. 28, s. 30, s. 3(1), s. 34, s. 4, s. 6
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984s. 15, s. 30

Subjects

Land acquisitionRetrospective legislationAdditional compensationSection 23(1‑A)Section 30Amendment Act 1984Compensation awardCourt jurisdiction

Judgment

K. S. PARIAPOORNAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 17, 1991

[M. M. PUNCHHI AND B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Section 23(1-A) (As introduced by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984}-Retrospectivity-Extent of-Land acquisition-Award given on
30.12 .1980 i.e. before introduction of Land Acquisition Amendment Bill in the c
Parliament-Civil Court's decree on reference given on 28.2.85 i.e. subse-
quent to coming into force of the Amendment Act-Held benefit of additional
compensation under section 23(1-A) not applicable to such proceedings.

Expression "Court" refers not only to Civil Court but also to High Court
and Supreme Court-"Award"-Jncludes award of compensation or any D
other benefit under the Act by the High Court.

Section 1 (2) (As amended by Act 68 of 1984 Act}-Effect of amendment
of section 1(2) on acquisition proceedings initiated under Kerala Land Acqui-
sition Act, 1961 Explained.
E
Statute Law-Substantive provision-Retrospectivity is not to be pre-
sumed unless provided for expressly or impliedly.

Proceedings for acquisition of the petitioners' Jand were initiated
and a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Kreala Land Acquisition Act
F
was issued on 21.3.1978. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was
made on 15.5.1979. The Collector gave his award on 30.12.1980 and the
possession of the lands taken in 1981. Since the claimants were not
satisfie',I with the award, a reference was made to the Civil Court under
section 18 of the Act. By its decision dated 28.2.85 the Civil Court
enhanced the compensation. G
.....
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended by the Land Acquisi-
tion (Amendment) Act, 1984. By section 15 of the Amendment Act, sub-
section (1-A) was introduced in section 23 of the Act under which the
benefit of additional compe"nsation was provided for. Though the Amend-
ment Act came into force w.e.f. 24.9.84, yet by Section 30 of the Amend- H
ment Act the newly introduced sub-section 1-A of Section 23 was given
retrospective effect. 485
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A In these petitions on the question: whether the land-holders were
entitled to the benefit of additional compensation under section 23(1-A)?
this Court, ·

HELD: 1. The governing point for determining the amount of com- ~
pensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act is the date of
B notification under Section 4 of the Act. (492-F]

2. Section 23(1-A) can be visualized as if a superstructure on the
structuring of Section 23(1), which in turn rests on the twin pillars of
Sections 11 and 15 which in turn rests on the notification under section 4
C of the Act as its foundation, the date of publication of which is the
foundation stone. [492-G]

3. A Court when applying sub-section 1-A of Section 23 would do so
only if it has in hand an acquisition based upon a notification under
Section 4 of the Act issued on 24.9.1984 or thereafter and not to any such
D notification issued earlier to that date. Same would be the role of the
Collector at his end when employing Section 15 and making an award
under Section 11 of the Act: (492-H, 493-A]

4. Sub-section(l) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act, 1984 gives a
limited retrospective effect to newly introduced sub-section (1-A) of
E Section 23. The said sub-section applies also to and in relation to two
situations: firstly to a case where the proceedings for acquisition of land
are pending under the principal Act on 30.4.1982 but wherein no award
is made by the Collector before the said date and secondly to a case where
\1.---
the proceedings for acquisition of land are commenced after 30.4.82. In
F such a case, it is immaterial whether the award by the Collector is made
before 24.9.1984 or subsequent thereto. (490 F-H]

5. The instant case does not fall in either of the two situations con-
templated by sub-section (1) of section 30 of Amendment Act. In this case,
not only the proceedings ofland acquisition are initiated prior to 30.4.1982,
G the award of the Collector is also made prior to the said date. There.fore,
the benefit of sub-section 1-A of Section 23 is not available to the claimants
here. (49~-A]

Union of India & Anr. etc. etc. v. Zora Singh etc. etc., [1992) 1
sec 673, dissented from.
H
PARIAPOORNAN v. STATE 487

Union ofIndia and another etc. v.Raghubir Singh, (dead) by Lrs. A
[1989) 2 sec 754, referred to.

Union ofIndia & Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama ofVedem Vasco De
Gama, [1990] 1 SCC 277, relied on.

6. The expression 'Court' in sub-section 23(1-A) refers not only to B
Civil Court (on reference under Section 18) but also to High Court and
Supreme Court on appeal. The High Court and Supreme Court can also
award the said benefit, if they decide t)le matter on or after 24.9.1984.
Indeed Section 23 is of equal application to Collector. [493-H, 494 A-B]

7. The word 'award' occurring in sub-section (1-A) is used not as a c
noun but as a verb. It cannot be said that the word 'award' cannot be used,
or is inappropriate, in the case of a High Court awarding the compensa-
tion or any other benefit under the Act. The expression 'award' is used in
the sense of 'give' or 'giving' and not in any technical sense, as something
distinct in character from judgment and/or decree. [494 C-E]
D
8. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 is a provision in the realm of
substantive Jaw. In the ·case of substantive provisions, retrospective
operation is not presumed unless the Act provides therefor either expressly
or by necessary intendment. The Parliament, by enacting Section 30(1) of
the Amendment Act has made its intention clear, as to what extent the said
E
provision shall have retrospective operation. One cannot add to it. One has
to look only to Section 30(1) to determine the ambit an'd reach of the
,, retrospective of Section 23(1-A). The language of sub-section (1-A) is not
sufficient to, nor does it warrant, infer another dimension ofretrospectivity
to it. [494 G-H, 495 A-BJ
F
9. The matter is referred to a larger Bench for considering the
correctness of the decision in 'Zora Singh' s case. [497-DJ

.. 10. The effect of amendment of sub-section (2) of Section (1) is that
the Central Act stood extended to Part B States as well-i.e., to the entire
country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is true that this G
extension is on and with effect from 24.9.84 but by virtue of this very
Amendment Act, certain provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by
the Amendment Act, were given retrospective effect to the extent specified.
In such a case it would be obvious that the said retrospective operation is
equally operative and effective. [496-H, 497-A]
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., -r--
[1989) 1 Supp. SCR 206, relied on. .-....
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos. 5514-17 of 1990.
From lhe Judgment and Decree dated 4 and 5-10-1989 of lhe Kerala
B High Court in L.A.A. Nos. 119, 120, 125 and 134 of 1986.
WITH
S.L.P.(C) Nos. 9215-22, 5685-88 of 1990.
P.S. Poli, T.S.K. Iyer, G.Visavanatha Iyer, V.B.Saharya, S. Balakrish-
C nan, K.R.Nambiar and George for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
M.M.PUNCHHI & B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, JJ. Retro-activity of some
of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Land
Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, has been a source of good amount
D of conflict of opinion in this Court as well as among the High Courts in the
country. We are not happy in adding to it but we find it inescapable, convinced
as we are, that the view taken by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union
of India & Anr. etc. etc. v. 'Zora Singh etc. etc. C.A. No. 4568/C)l decided on
22-11-1991 requires reconsideration. We shall first state the facts in S.L.P. No.
5514 of 1990 to indicate how the question arises.
E The notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala and Acquisition Act
(corresponding to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894) was issued
on 21-3-1978. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 15-5-1979. The Land
Acquisition Officer (Collector) passed lhe award on 30-12-1980 and posses-
sion Of acquired lands taken some time in 1981. The calimants were not
F satisfied with lhe award. They asked for a reference under Section 18 which
was made. The Civil Court gave its decision on 28-2-1985, enhancing lhe
compensation.
The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, which was later enacted into
Amendment Act 68 of 84, was introduced in Parliament on 30-4-1982. The
Amendment Act came into force with effect from 24-9-1984. For lhe present
G purpose it is sufficient to notice only two provisions of the Amendment Act.
By Section 15 of the Amendment Act, sub-section (I-A) was introduced in
Section 23. It reads:
"Sec. 23(1-A)-In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated
H
PARIAPOORNANv. STATE ~89

at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value A
for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication
of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of
such land to the date of the award of the CoJlector or the date of
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier:

.Explanation-In computing the period referred to in this sub-section B
any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acqui-
sition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction
by the order of any court shall be excluded."

By Section 15 of the Amendment Act sub-section (2) of Section 23 was
also amended. In place of the words "15 per centum" the words "30 per C
centum" were substituted. Sections 28 and 34, relating to interest were also
amended, raising the rate of interest, vide Sections 18 and 20 of the Amend-
ment Act.

Though the Amendment Act came into force with effect from 24-9-1984,
some of its provisions were given retrospective effect, namely, the newly D
J introduced sub-section I-A of Section 23 and the amended sub-section (2) of
Section 23 and sections 28 and 34. This was done by Section 30 of the
Amendment Act which reads thus:

"Sec.30-Transitional provisions-[}] The provisions of sub-section
(I-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause (a)
E
of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have
,, . applied, also to, and in relation tcr-
~
(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the
principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of F
introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in
the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the
Collector before that date;
~

- (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the
principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award
has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this
G
Act.

[2] The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28
.of the Principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and
Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply and shall be deemed H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the
Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or
Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provi-
sions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date
of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982,
in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this
B Act.

[3] The provisions of Section 34 of the principal Act, as amended
·by Section 20 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have
applied, also to and in relation to,

c (a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the
principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982
{the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), and the amount of
compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited
under Section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on
D and from that date; and

{b) every case in which such possession had been taken on or after
that date but before the commencement of this Act without t~e
amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the
said Section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such
E possession."

The question that arises in this batch of SLPs is whether the claimants are
entitled to the benefit of Section 23(I-A)? It is relevant to recall that the award
of the Collector in this case was made on 30-12-1980, i.e., prior to 30-4-1982
F and the decision of the Civil Court on refererice under Section 18 is dated 28-
2-1985, i.e., subsequent to the coming into force of the Act.

Sub-section(!) of Sectioq 30 of the Amendment Act gives a limited
retrospective effecuo sub-Section (I-A) of Section 23. The said sub-section
applies also to and in relation to two situations:
G
(i) a case where the proceedings for acquisition of land are pending
under the principal Act on 30-4-1982 but wherein no award is
made by the Collector before the said date and;

(ii) a case where the proceedings for acquisition of land are com-
H menced after 30-4-1982. In such a case, it is immaterial whether
the award by the Collector is made before 24-9-1984 or subsequent
thereto.
PARIAPOORNANv. STATE 491
_. It is evident that the case before us does not fall in either of the two A
-- situations contemplated by sub-section (I) of section 30 of the Amen4ment
Act In this case, not only the preceedings of land acquisition· are initiated prior
to 30-4-1982, the award of the Collector is also made prior to the said date. If
so it should follow that the· benefit of sub-section 1-A of Section 23 is not
available to the claimants here. Mr. Poti, the learned counsel for the claimants,
however, relies upon the aforesaid decision of a three Judge Bench of this R
Court in support of his contention that even in a case like the present one, the
said benefit is available. The facts of that case are practically similar to the facts
of the case before us. The notification under Section 4 was issued in 1979, the
-·· declaration in 1981 and the award of the Collector made on 31st March, 1981.
A reference was made to the Civil Court under Section 18 which was decided
in the year 1985 (in some cases in 1986). The question considered therein was c
whether in such a case benefit of section 23(1-A) can be given to the claimants-
land holders. The Bench took the view, particular!y on the basis of the language
employed· in Section 23(1-A), that the benefit thereunder is available to all
cases where the Civil Court makes its award on or after the coming into force
of the Amendment Act. Kania Justice speaking for the Division Bench laid
partieular stress upon the words "courts" and "award" occurring in the said D
sub-section. The opinion expressed is that the expression "court" as defined in
the Act means a Civil Court and that the word "award" is applicable only to the
decision or determination of the Collector and Civil Court, but not to the
decision/determination by the High Court, or Supreme Court on appeal.
Accordingly it is held that the Civil Court (on reference under section 18) can
E
award the amount provided by the said sub-section in every case decided by it,
after the coming into force of the said sub-section, irrespective of any other

-
~
-~ circumstance. In other words, whether the proceedings for acquisition have
begun before or after 30-4-1982 and whether the award of the Collector is made
before or after 30-4-1982, the Civil Court (on reference under Section 18) can
award the said benefit so long as its decision is rendered after the commence- F
ment of the Amendment Act (24-9-1984). The said decision is thus based upon
the language of 23(1-A) itself and is unrelated to and is independent of the

.. ,
,,...,
~
limited rerrospectivity given to the said sub-section by sub-section (1) of
Section 30 of the Amendment Act. The correctness of this reasoning is
questioned by Shri T.S.Krishnamurthy Iyer, the learned counsel for the State
of Kerala. Shri Poti, learned counsel for the claimants-land holders however G
supported its reasoning. We have heard both the counsel at some length and.
are of the respectful opinion that the view expressed by the Bench does not
appear to be in accordance with the language and intention of the Amendment
~··~
Act.

Now one can hit srraightin the bull's eye. Section 23(1) enjoins the Court H
·---
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A to take into consideration six factors, as enumerated therein, in determining the
amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act.
The first factor, jurisdictional in nature, is to determine the market value of the
--
_.__

land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Section
24 enumerates eight factors which the Court is forbidden from ta_king into
consideration. The Court obliged for the purpose is the Principal Civil Court
B of Original Jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided, as per sub-section (d) of
Section 3 of the Act. That such is the Court has also been spelled out in Union
of India and another etc. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc., [1989) 2 SCC
754 but in a different context. The role of the Collector towards determination
of compensation ends up by making an award under Section 11 and that award
..
under Section 12 is final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and
c the persons interested. Yet Section 15 enjoins on the Collector that in determin-
ing the amount of compensation he shall be guided by the provisions contained
in Sections 23 and 24, providing matters to be considered or neglected in
determining consideration. Thus it would be seen that between the Collector
and the Reference Court, whose powers if invoked under Section 18, the do's
and dont's which regulate their respective roles are set out in Sections 23 and
D 24 of the Act and Section 23(S-A) is a part of those provisions. So what the
•,
Court is required at a later stage to do under sub-section I-A of Section 23, the
Collector is required beforehand to do under Section 11 read with Section 15. ~
Having in the first place determined the amount of compensation to be awarded
for land, as required by Section 23(1), both, in their respective spheres, are
required to further award an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 per
E cent per annum on such market value, as found to be existing on the date of
notification under Section 4, for the period following commencing from the
date of publication under sub-section (1) of Section 4, in respect of such land,
to the date of award of the Collector, or the date of taking possession of the
land, whichever is earlier [emphasis laid]. It is thus evident that the governing
point for determining the amount of. compensation to be awarded for land
.
.....-

1

F
acquired under the Act is the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
That the provisions aforesaid are substantive provisions and as amended

...
would apply prospectively is also the dictum in "Zora Singh' s case (supra). On
that basis Section 23(1-A) can be visualized as if a super-structure on the ~
structuring of Section 23(1), which in tum rests on the twin pillars of Sections ~~

G 11 and 15 which in tum rests on the notification under Section 4 of the Act
as its foundation, the date of publication of which is the foundation stone. The
legislature having designed the horizontal growth in such manner, the collec-
tive scheme which has been made operational pmspectively on 24-9-1984 and
'·~
onwards becomes plain because that is the date on which the amendment
comes into effect. When we import this understanding" to the scheme of things
H it becomes evident that a Court when applying sub-section I-A of Section 23
PARIAPOORNAN v. STATE 493

would do so only if it has in hand an acquisition based upon a notification under A
Section 4 of the Act issued on 24-9-1984 or thereafter and not to any such
notification issued earlier to that date. Same would be the role of the Collector
at his end when employing Section 15 and making an award under Section 11
of the Act. ·

Section 30 of the Amendment Act however providi~g for transitional B
provisions is an exception giving a limited retrospectivity as to the applicability
of sub-section (I-A) of Section 23 so as to apply to some acquisitions
commenced prior to 24-9-1984. The extended applicability is plain from the
employment of the word "also" in the opening part. The principal Act having
brought in Section I-A of Section 23 to the scheme of things was also ordained
to apply and was deemed to have applied to two kinds of acquisition proceed- c
ings which were covered under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 30 of the Amendment Act. As has been spelled out in this order earlier
both the clauses are not applicable on the instant fact situation, the award herein
having been made prior to 30-4-1982 and was final under Section 11, having
related back to Section 4 notification of21-3-1978. The limited retrospection
is meant to cover acquisitions regarding which notifications under.Section 4 of D
the Act were operative on the 30th day of April, 1982, the day when the Bill
was introduced in the House of People and in which no award had been made
by the Collector before that date (Vide clause a) as also to notifications issued
after 30th day of April; 1982 regarding which award had or had not been made
by the Collector before the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 24-9-1984
(vide Clause b). To these limited situations is the Court empowered to award
E
under sub-section I-A of Section 23· an additional amount in the case of
acquisition covered under sub-clauses (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
30 of the Amendment Act in relation to notifications under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act issued prior to 24-9-1984. Viewed in this light, the use
of sub-section (I-A) of Section 23 is not available to the Court in present ii F
to each and every acquisition, at all and every time, whenever determining
compensation under section 18 of the Act ignoring the date of the notification
under Seetion 4 and its implications. 'Zora Singh' s case (supra) appears to us
to have conferred on the Court a power which it did not have excepting of
course if the acquisition fell within the provision of Section 30, sub-section (1)
"-· of the Amendment Act. The ratio appears to us to be too wide having serious G
ramifications and thus would require reconsideration.

Further,. in our opinion, the use of the word 'Court' in sub-section I-A
of Section 23 is of no significance in the context. For that matter each of the
sub-sections in Section 23 use the said expression. The expression 'Court' in
the context refers not only to Civil Court (on reference under Section 18) but H

\
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

..._.
A also to High Court and Supreme Court on appeal. Suppose in a given case,
solatium is not awarded or is awarded at a lesser rate, the High Court on appeal
can award the same. Similarly, the principles enumerate in sub-section(!) are
of equal application to the High Court and Supreme Court on appeal. If so,
ligically it should follow----,applying the principle of the said decision-that
even the High Court/Supreme Court can also award the said benefit, if they
B decide the matter on or after 24-9-1984. Indeed Section 23 is of equal
application to Collector. It cannot certainly be contended that the principles
contained iil and the benefits conferred by Section 23 are not applicable to and
cannot be awarded by the Collector. The fact that Section 23 occurs in part
III (Reference to Court and Procedure thereof) is of no significance. Now
...
coming to the word 'award' occurring in sub-section (1-A), the said word is
C used not as a noun but as a verb. The expression 'award'is not defined in the
Act. It is true that the decision of the Civil Court on a reference under Section
18 (whether relating to quantum of compensation or to apportionment thereof)
is called an award by Section 1 of Section 26 but at the same time sub-section
2 of Section 23 says that every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and
the statement of the grounds of every such award a Judgment within the
D meaning of Section 2(2) and Section 2(9) respectively of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Be that as it may, we may reiterate that the said expression
is used as a verb in the sub-section and not as a noun. Can it be said that the
word 'award' cannot be used, or is inappropriate, in the case of a High Court
awarding the compensation or any other benefit under the Act? We think, not.
E The expression 'award' is used in the sense of 'give' or 'giving' and not in any
technical sense, as something distinct in character from Judgment and/or
decree.

The effect ofthe decision in Zora Singh' s case (supra) is this: apart from \
the retrospective operation given by sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the '
F Amendment Act. another dimension of retrospectivity is found in the language
of sub-section itself. According to it. the only relevant test is whether the Civil
Court (under Section 18) is rendering its decision (award) on or after the
commencement of the Amendment Act-no other circumstance need be
noti.ced. Even if the acquisition proceedings have begun and award of the
;·
Collector made prior to 30-4-1982, this benefit is available so long as the Civil
G Court (on a reference under Section 18) renders its decision or after24-9-1984.
It is well to remember.that the said provision (sub-section (I-A) of Section 23)
is a provision in the realm of substanti.ve law. This is also the view expressed
in Zora Singh' s case (supra); it says so expressly. In the case of substantive
provisions, retrospective operation is not presumed unless the Act provides
therefor either expressly or by necessary intendment Ordinarily, therefore, the
H amended provision would not apply to pending proceedings. Suppose, the
PARIAPOORNANv. STATE 495

amendment had taken away or curtailed an existing benefit, what would be the A
position? The principle cannot be different, merely because the amendment
either confers new benefits or enhances the existing benefits. The Parliament,
by enacting Section 30(1) of the Amendment Act has made its intention clear,
as to what extent the said provision shall have retrospective operation. We
cannot add to it. We must look only to Section 30(1) to determine the ambit and
reach of the retrospectivity of Section 23(1-A). In our respectful opinion, the B
language of sub-section (1-A) is not sufficient to, nor does it warrant, infer
another dimension of retrospectivity to it.

The opinion expressed by us was also the opinion of a Bench of two
Judges of this Court in Union ofIndia & Ors. v. Filip Ti ago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama, [1990] 1 SCC 277 which has of course been over-ruled in c
'Zora Singh' s case (srrpra). The facts in Filip Tia go's case (supra) are also
similar to the facts in 'Zora's Singh' s case (supra) and the facts of the case
before us. There too, award of the Collector was made prior to 30-4-1982 and
the decision of the Civil Court on reference under Section 18 rendered
subsequent to 14-9-1984, that is on 28th May, 1985. Question arose, whether
in such a situation the benefit of Section 23(1-A) can be given to the land- D
holders. The learned Judges were of the opin,ion that in such a case the said

- benefit was not available. The reasoning of the Bench runs thus:

"The objective words used in this sub-section are similar to those
that are used in Section 23(2). It enjoins a duty on the court to
E
award the additional amount at 12 per cent on the market value. of
the land for the period prescribed thereunder. But this again is a
part of the scheme for determining compensation under Section
23(1) of the Act. It also operates on the market value of the land
acquired. It is plainly and distinctly prospective in its operation
since market value has to be determined as on the date of publica- F
tion of notification under Section 4(1). But the legislature has
given new starting point for operation of Section 23(1-A) for
certain cases. That will be found from Section 30 sub-sections

- (l)(a) and (b) of the Transitional Provisions."

The learned Judges then referred to language of sub-section (1) of G
Section 30 of the Amendment Act and held that entitlement to the additional
amount provided by Section 23(1-A) depends upon either of the clauses in sub-
section 1 of Section 30 being satisfied and in no other case. The learned Judges
also pointed out, and in our respectful opinion rightly, the distinction in the
language used in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 30. Whereas
sub-section (1) speaks of an award by the Collector alone, sub-section (2) H
t-

A
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

speaks of an award by Collector as well as the Court. This distinction indicates
r
that wherever the Parliament intended that the benefit should be extended even
by the Court, it said so expressly.

Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer contends that the decision in 'Zora Singh' s case
(supra) runs counter the entire basis and reasoning of the decision of the
B Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh' s case (supra). Zora Singh' s case
(supra) has explained and distinguished Raghubir Singh' s case (supra) as
dealing with Section 30(2) and not with the question at issue in 'Zora Singh' s
case (supra). Since, we are referring to the matter to a larger Bench, we do not
wish to express any opinion on this submission of Shri Iyer. It is true that in
Raghuvir Singh' s case (supra) this Court's co~relating of sub-section (2) of
C Section 30 of the Amendment Act with sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the
Principal Act lead the Court to award enhanced solatium and enhanced interest
as provided by sub-clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the Amendment
Act, but that field is totally a separate field and cannot have any bearing to the
controversy in hand. It is to be remembered that the provisions in the Parent Act
remain good unless amended or altered at a later stage. The transitional
D provisions in the Amendment Act, on the other hand, cover matters which are
in the pipeline and are in transit till reaching their destination. On clearance of
the transitional load the transitional provisions exhaust-themselves having
outlived their utility. This in our view is also an aid which could go towards
re-consideration of the ratio in 'Zora Singh' s case (supra).

E
;
Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned ·counsel for the State of Kerala raised L
yet another contention which we must deal with. It is this: In the State of
Kerala, the Kerala~and Acquisition Act, 1961 (which had received the assent ~--

of the President) was in force until 24.9.1984 when the Land Acquisition Act, '
1894 was extended to that State by virtue of the Amendment effected in
Section 1(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Amendment Act 68 of
F
1984. All the proceedings for acquisition of land until then were being taken
under the Kerala Act. Only with effect from 24-9-1984, has the Central Act
come into operation. If so, none of the provisions of the Centr~J Act can have
r
retrospective effect so as to slide into the operation of Kerala Act. The
Provisions of Central Act, even as amended in 1984, do operate only on and
G from 24-9-1984 and cannot be given any retrospective effect-it is submitted.
We cannot agree. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, prior to its_ \
amendment in 1984, applied the said Act to whole of India except "part B
States". "By the said Amendment Act, the words "part B States" were substi- r
tuted by the words "the State of Jammu and Kashmir". The effect is that the ·?.,_
Central Act stood extended to part B States as well-i.e., to the entire country '
.d. except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
PARIAPOORNAN v. STATE 497

It is true that this extention is on and with effect from 24-9-1984 but by A
vinue of this very Amendment Act, cenain provisions of the Principal Act, as
ammended by the Amendment Act, were given retrospective effect to the
extent specified. In such a case it would be ol)vious that the said retrospective
operation is equally operative and effective. We see no inconsistency in saying
so. Indeed, saying otherwise would introduce an element of inconsistency. It
has been held by this Coun in KanthimaJhy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of B
Kera/a and Others that the effect of amendment of sub-section (2) of Section
1 of the principal Act is the same as the repeal of the Kerala Act and that same
) ·*' consequences follow. It has been held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act
-i 1897 applies in such a situation, even though, as a matter of fact, the Kerala Act
becomes inoperative not by any repealing provision but by vinue of clause (1)
of Article 254 of the Constitution. Accordingly we reject the contention of Shri C
Iyer.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove the· matter is referred to a larger
Bench for considering the correctness of the decision in Zora Singh' s caSe
(supra). The papers may accordingly be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India for appropriate orders in this behalf. D
,.
T.N.A. Referred to larger bench.