THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusJAGIR SINGH ETC.

A                    THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                                          v.
                               .JAGIR SINGH ETC.

                                OCTOBER 30, 1995

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

           Land Acquisitioll Act, 1894, as amended by LandAcquisitiol! (Amend-
    mel!t) Act 68 of 1984.

        Ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28-Additional benefits-Held, if the High Cow1
c dismisses the appeal confinning the award of the Collector or that of the Civil
    Court, it has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory a1nount
    under respective provisions as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

          The High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State
D   against the award dated 23.1978, passed by the reference Court, granted
    the land owners additional benefits under the provision of Land Acquisi·
    lion Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68
    of 1984. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals by special leave.

          Allowing the appeals, this Court
E
          HELD : 1.1. Enhancement of the compensation in excess of the award
    of the Collector under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a
    condition precedent to exercise the power to award statutory additional
    amounts envisaged under the provisions of S.23(1-A), 23(2) and S.28 of
F   the Act on the excess compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal
    confirming the award of the Collector or that of the Civil Court, then it
    has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory amount under
    the respective provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of
    1984. (554-D-E]
G          1.2 The High Court, therefore, has no power to award the statutory
     benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 while confirming the decree
     of the Reference Court. [554·H]

           Union of India v. Smt. Pratap (Kaur) through Lrs. & Allr. Etc., J.T.
H    (1995) 2 SC 569, State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, .J.T.
                                         552
                         STATE v. JAG!R SINGH                            553

(1995) 2 SC 583 and Tllc State of P1111jab & Anr. Etc. v. Babu Si11gh & Ors. A
Etc., CA Nos. 3287-95/95 @ SLP (C) No. 2207-15 of 1979 decided on
February 28, 1995, relied on.

     U11io11 of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754 and KS.
Pmipoornan v. State of Kera/a, (1994] 5 SCC 593, referred to.
                                                                                B
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9911-12
of 1995.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.88 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 555 and 869 of 1979.                          C
      G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Though respondents have been served, none is appearing.                   D
      Leave granted.

      The award of the Additional District Judge is dated March 2, 1978.
When the State had gone in appeal against the award, while dismissing the
appeals the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had granted          E
additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894.
Sub-section (1) of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the
Act') envisages determination of the amount of compensation· to be
awarded lo the acquired land. Sub-section (JA) envisages that "i11 addition"
to the n1arket value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every   F
case award an amount calculated @ 12 per centum per annum on such
market value for the period commencing on from the dale of the publica-
tion of the notification under S.4(1) to the date of the award of the
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Sub-section (2) also provides that "in addition" to the market value of the     G
land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30
per centun1 on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature
of acquisition.

      Section 28 envisages that if the sum which, in the opinion of the
Court, the Collector ought lo have awarded as compensation is in excess         H
    554                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, it enjoins the
    Court that the Collector 'shall pay mt such excess" compensation
    interest @ nine per ccnlum per annum from the date on which he took
    possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Cowt.
    Under the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court
B   after the date of expiry period of one year from the date on which
    possession is taken, interest @ 15 per centum per annum shall be payable
    from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of
    such excess.

           It would thus be seen that the legislative animation is clear that the
c   Civil Court on reference under section 18, or the High Court or in some
    States District Judge exercising appellate power under S. 54 or Civil Court
    under section 26, as the case may be, awards compensation in excess of tl.e
    amount awarded by the Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to
    award additional benefits envisaged in sub-section (1-A) of S.23, sub-
D   section (2) of S.23 and S.28 of the Act. In other words, enhancenient of
    the compensation in excess of the award of the Collector under Section 11
    is a condition precedent lo exercise the power to award statutory additional
    amounts envisaged under the aforesaid respective provisions on the excess
    compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal confirming the award
E   of the Collector or that of the Civil Court, then it has no jurisdiction and
    power to award additional statutory amount under the respective
    provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. This Court
    held that the same view in U11io11 of !11dia v. Smt. Pratap (Kaur) through
    Lrs. & Alli'.' Etc., J.T. (1995) 2 SC 569, State of Maharashtra v. Maharau
    Srawan Hatkar, J.T. (1995) 2 SC 583 and The Stale of Punjab & A11r. Etc.
F   v. Babu Singh & On. Etc., CA Nos. 3287-95 @ SLP (C) No. 2207-15 of
    1979 decided on February 28, 1995.

          Moreover, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of l11dia v.
    Raghubir Singh, 11989] 2 SCC 754 and K.S. Paripooma11 v. State of Kera/a,
G   [1994] 5 sec 593 covered the entire· gamut of controversy and entitlement
    under sections 23 (lA), 23(2) and 28.

          The High Court, therefore, has no power to award the statutory
    benefits under sections 23(1.A), 23(2) and 28 while confirming the decree
H   of the Reference Court. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the
                         STATE v. JAGIR SINGH                            555

additional benefits awarded arc set aside. Ho\vevcr, the clain1ants are         A
entitled to solatiun1 @ l? 1Y,; and interest@ 6'-fr; on the enhanced con1pcn-
sation made by the Reference Court. The award of the District Judge as
confirmed by the High Court stands upheld with the above modification.
The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances without costs_.

R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.