STATE OF KARNATAKAversusMALLINATH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 645
- Decided
- 30 October 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, does not apply to awards made before the amendment, and claimants are not entitled to the additional amount.
Summary
The State of Karnataka appealed against the award made by the Collector in a land acquisition proceeding involving Mallinath and others. The issue was whether Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984, which provides for additional compensation, could be applied to awards that were made before the amendment came into force. The Supreme Court examined the date of the Collector's award and held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the claimants were not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1‑A). The Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court and appellate Court orders to that extent, and confirmed the original award otherwise. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, is applicable to awards made prior to the amendment.
- Whether claimants are entitled to additional compensation under the said provision for pre‑amendment awards.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
MALL!NATH AND ORS.
OCTOBER 30, 1995
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act 68 of 1984:
C S.23( IA)-Additional benefits-Held, not applicable in respect of
award made prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984.
On the question of applicability of S.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, partly allowing the appeal filed by the State, this Court
D HELD : Since the award of the Collector was made much prior to
the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, the claimants are not entitled to the
payment of additional amount under S.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition,
1894. (557-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 9900-
E 9904 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.86 of the Karnataka High
Court in M.F.A. Nos. 810, 1173, 1174, 1223 & 1224 of 1986.
M. Veerappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Appellant.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
It is stated in the affidavit filled by Matru Lal Kashyap, clerk of Shri
Veerappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on instructions from
the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Somawa Patil, the second respon-
G dent herein had left behind her son Mallinath who is respondent No. 1 in
SLP (C) No. 14220/86 as her legal representative and that since Mallinath
is already on record, there is no need to bring him on record separately as
legal representative. He is transposed as legal representative. Since he is
already representing the estate of his deceased mother Somavva Patil, it is
H accordingly recorded.
556
STATE v. MALLINAIB 557
i.-eave granted. A
The controversy hinges upon the applicability of section 23(1-A) of
the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') as amended by Act 68 of
1984. Since the award of the Collector wa> made much prior to the
Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of addition-
al amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. B
The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the orders of the
High Court and the appellate Court are set aside to that extent. In other
respects, the award stands confirmed. No costs.
R.P . Appeal allowed.
.I
"
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.