Holding

The High Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Sections 151 and 152 for additional benefits, as its jurisdiction under Section 54 arises only when it is enhancing compensation under Section 23(1) with Section 26, not independently of the original proceedings.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s orders granting enhanced solatium, interest and additional amounts under the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act in a case where the land acquisition notification (1974) and the original compensation awards (1976‑1980) pre‑dated the amendment. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 for such additional benefits. It held that the High Court acquires jurisdiction only when it is enhancing compensation under Section 23(1) in accordance with Section 26, not independently of the original proceedings. Consequently, the High Court was without jurisdiction to grant the additional benefits, and the respondents were not entitled to solatium at 15%, interest at 6% or the additional amount under Section 23(1‑A). The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s orders, and the respondents’ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court had jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 for enhanced solatium, interest and additional amount under the 1984 amendment.
Whether the additional benefits under Sections 23(1‑A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 apply to acquisitions and awards made before the amendment came into force.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 151, s. 152, s. 18, s. 23(1), s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 26, s. 28, s. 4(1), s. 54
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984)s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation enhancementSolatiumInterestAmendment Act 1984JurisdictionSection 54Section 151Section 152High CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

)

A THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC.
v. .......
I•
BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. •

FEBRUARY 28, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Enhanced
---).
solatium, interest and additional amount-Payment of.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
c was published y
in the State Gazette on 11.12.1974 acquiring a large extent ...,•
of land for publk purposes. The compensation awarded by the Collector
under section 11 was enhanced on reference. On appeal a Single Judge
further enhanced the compensation. The L.P.A. and S.L.P. against the
same were also dismissed.
D
Subsequently some appeals were disposed of by the High Court and
applications were filed under Sections 151 and 152 for amending the decree
for awarding the benefit of enhanced solatium, interest and additional
y
amount available under Sections 23(l·A), 23(2), and 28 of the 1984 Act as
amended by Act 68 of 1984. Not satisfied with the orders passed thereon
E by the High Court, the State preferred the present appeals.
~

Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1.1 The High Court acquires jurisdiction under S.54 of the
Land Acquisition Act against the enhanced compensation awarded by the ~
F reference court under S.18, under S.23(1) read with S.26 of the Act and
not independently of the proceedings. (376-B-C]
~-
1.2 The High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining
the applications under Ss.151 and 152 to award the additional benefits
G under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already
~sposed of. [376-F]

2. The High Court should have allowed solatium at 15% and interest >-
at 6%. Payment of additional amount as contemplated under Section
23(1·A) cannot be made since the notification under Section 4(1) was dated
H 11.12.1974 and the Award of the District Judge was dated 23.02.1978.
374
5TAIBOFPB. v. B.SJNGH 375

Therefore the respondents were not entitled ~o additional benefits under A ·
Act 68 of 1984 or to an amendment of the d,·,;rees already disposed of.
f 376-E]

State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh, C.A. No. 1607/78, applied.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 'l.287-95 B
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.88 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.M. Nos. 199, 364Cl/86, 356, 375, 334-Cl/86 362
CI, 336, 335 CI/86 and 196/CI of 1986.
c
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted
D
After Shri R.B. Mehrotra was elevated to the Bench, notices have
been sent to the respondents to make alternative arrangements. All the
notices have been returned. In some cases the acknowledgements have.not
been received. Thus, we deem that the notices have been duly served on
the respondents. They do not appear to be interested after the law has been E
settled by this Court and is against them.

Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short
'the Act'), was published in the State Gazette on 11.12.1974 acquiring large
extent of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for
public purpose. The Collector under s.11 made his award on 27.9.1976 F
determining the compensation between Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 26, 7'}1) per acre.
On reference, by decree dated 23.2.1978, the Addi. Dist. Judge enhanced
the compensation varying between Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 40,000 per acre. On
further appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation between Rs.
40,000 and Rs. 50,000 per acre at flat rate by judgment dated 3.9.1980. The
L.P.A. was dismissed on 27.4.1981. Thus, the proceedings were concluded G
prior to the Amendment Act has come into force. Since the S.L.P. was
dismissed on 5.9.1983 and some appeals were subsequently disposed of by
the High Court, applications under s.151 and 152 were made in these
matter for amending the decree or for awarding the benefits of enhanced
solatium, interest and additional amount available under ss. 23 (1-A), 23(2), H
376 :, UPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A 28 of the Act as arr.... nded by L.A. (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. Cal)jng
in question the orders of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated
15.7.1988, these appeals by special leave have been filed.

It is to be seen that the High Court acquires jurisdiction under s.54
B against the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court under
s.18, under s.23(1) with s.26 of the Act. The Court gets the jurisdiction only
while enhancing or declining to enhance t~e compensation to award higher
compensation. While enhancing the compensation "in addition" to the
compensation under s.23(1), the benefits enumerated under s.23(1-A) and
s.23(2) also interest on the enhanced compensation on the amount which
C in the .opinion of the Court "the Collector ought to have awarded in excess
of the sum which the Collector did award", can be .ordered. Thus, it would
be clear that Civil Court or High Court gets jurisdiction when it determines
higher compensation under s.23(1) and not independently of the proceed-
ings.
D
This is the view taken by this Court in CA. No. 1607/78 titled State
of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh, disposed of on 22.2.1995. The same ratio
applies to the facts in this case, since as on the date when the judgment
and decree was made by the High Court, the law was that the High Court
E should award solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. Payment of additional
amount as contemplated under s.23(1-A) cannot be made since the
·notification under s.4(1) was dated 11.12.1974 and even the award of the
District Court was dated 23.2.1978. Under these circumstances, the L.A.
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application and there is no error in the
F award or the decree as initially granted. The High Court was clearly '~.
'
without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications under ss.151 and 152
to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or
to amend the decrees already disposed of.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The petitions filed by the
respondents before the High Court stand dismissed. Since the respondents
are not represented, we make no order as to costs.

A.G. Appeals allowed.