GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANOOP SINGH AND ANR

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 522

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI

Judgment text

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANOOP SINGH AND ANR. JANUARY 23, 2003 [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ. ] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 25 {prior to Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68of1984) and Section 53-Compensation-Whether can be awarded over and above the claimed amount-Awardpassed prior to the effective date ofamended Section 25-Amendment of the claim under CPC allowed-Held, though pre- ~ amendment Section would be attracted in the case, but in the instant case it does not get att;acted in view of the amendment of the claim as CPC is applicable to the proceedings under the Act-Code a/Civil Procedure, 1908.

Sections 23(2) and 28 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, Section 23(1-A) (as inserted by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984); Sections 30(J)(a),(b) and 30(2)-Applicability ofthe amendedprovisions to pending proceedings-Held, in the/acts ofthe case, Sections 23(2) and 28 are applicable as the dates ofaward passed by the Collector as well as the Reference Court fall within the time span specified in Section 30(2/-Section 23(1-A) is applicable to pending proceedings only when the cases/all within the ambit ofSection 30(1)(a) and (b)-Jn the/acts ofthe case, not applicable since the case does not fall within the ambit ofSection 30(1)(a) and (b). In land acquisition proceedings, claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation amount, filed application for reference claiming therein compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard.

After the case was referred to Reference Court, claimants filed a petition for amendment of the claim, under CPC seeking fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard and the application was allowed. Reference Court determined compensation of the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard and awarded solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. Subsequent to passing of award Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was passed whereby Sections 25, 23 and 28 were amended. Section sn G. D. A. v. ANOOP SINGH 523 25 was substituted so as to remove the bar against the award of y compensation in excess of what was claimed. Sections 23 and 28 enhanced the rates of solatium and interest. In appeal of the claimants, High Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 85 per sq. yard and directed 30% solatium and interest at enhanced rate prescribed by amended Section 28. It also awarded an additional amount u/s 23(1-A). Appeal of the appellant-authority was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeals.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court earlier to the effective date of substitution of Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, the limitation on the power of the Court to award compensation as enjoined by the pre-amended Section would be attracted. However, there is a formidable impediment for the appellant to take shelter under the preexisting Section 25. On a petition filed by the claimant, the application wherein compensation was claimed at Rs. 20 per square Yard was allowed to be amended by an order of the Reference Court. By virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act.

There is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act to file a petition for amendment of the claim under the Land Acquisition Act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment. When once this amendment is recognized and taken note of, it is obvious that the bar under Section 25 does not get attracted. Legality or propriety of the order permitting amendment was neither specifically challenged before the High Court nor a specific ground taken that it was contrary to Section 25. At this stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to assail the correctness of the order permitting amendment. [526-H; 527-A-Fl Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal. [20001 7 SCC, relied on. 2. 1.

In the present case, the dates of the award of the Collector and the award made by the Reference Court, both fall' within the time span specified in Section 30(2) of the Act The error committed by the Reference Court in granting solatium and interest at the rates specified in tile old 'r Sections 23 and 28 was rightly set right by the High Court by awarding solatium and interest at the enhanced rates. [528-Hl Union ofIndia v. Raghubir Singh, [19891 2 SCC 754, followed. K. S. Paripoornan (11) v. State ofKera/a and Ors. , (199511 SCC 367, relied on. 2. 2. Section 23(1-A) would be applicable only to those cases which fall within the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act. The respondents are not entitled to the benefit of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as the case does not fall within the ambit of either Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. K. S. Paripoornan v. State ofKera/a & Ors.

, (1994] 5 SCC 593, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 5. 2. 1993 of the Allahabad High Court in F. A. No. 169 of 1985. WITH C. A. No. 5102/96. M. N. Krishnamani and Sudhir Kulshreshtha with him, for the Appellants. Dushyant A. Dave, Mrs. Divya Roy, Jawahar Singh, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava and Ms. Bina Gupta with him, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. In these appeals by Special leave preferred against the judgment ofthe Allahabad High Court in a First Appeal, two questions arise for consideration : (1) whether the respondents land holders could claim and get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act over and G. D. A. v. ANOOP SINGH [P. VENKATARAMA REODI, J. ) 525 • above what they claimed in an application seeking reference to Civil Court ...

, and (2) whether the respondents are entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984? An extent of two bighas and I biswa equivalent to 6,20 I sq. yards situated in the village of Jatwara Kalan of Ghaziabad District was acquired under the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, starting with the publication of Notification under Section 4(1) on 18. 8. 1962. The acquisition was for the purpose of implementation of a scheme for planned development of Ghaziabad Municipal Area taken up by the then Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad - the appellant, being its successor. The declaration under Section 6 was made on 27th October, 1964, possession was taken on 22. 12. 1964 and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Special Officer on 26. 6. 1967. The market K value was fixed by him as low as Rs. 2 per sq. yard, evaluating it as agricultural land.

Being dissatisfied with the same, an application was filed by the claimants seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that application, compensation was claimed at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard. Though the application is said to be ante dated in collusion with the then Land Acquisition Officer, there is no evidence to that effect. After the case was referred to the court of District Judge at Ghaziabad, the claimants filed )- a petition for amendment of the application dated 11. 7. 1967 seeking fixation of market value at Rs. I00 per sq. yard instead of Rs. 20. The same was allowed. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 31. 5. 1984 determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard and also awarded solatium at IS per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment.

Shortly thereafter, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984) was enacted by the Parliament which, inter alia, amended Section 25, Section 23 and Section 28. ~ By the latter two Sections, the rates of solatium and interest were enhanced and the benefit of additional amount of 12 per cent was also conferred. Section 25 was substituted so as to remove the bar against the award of compensation in excess of what was claimed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9. Section 25 of the Act came into force from 24. 9. 1984. The amendment of two provisions viz. , Sections 23 and 28 were given limited retrospective effect as mentioned in Section 30 of the amendment Act. _. , The claimants preferred an appeal in the High Court praying for further enhancement of compensation. The appellant herein also filed appeal questioning the enhancement of compensation by the Civil Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 05. 2.

1993 allowed the appeal of the claimants partly by enhancing the market value to Rs. 85 per sq. yard, based T on the judgment in a comparable case. The High Court directed solatium to be awarded at 30 per cent, and interest at the enhanced rates prescribed by 'the amended Section 28. The High Court also awarded an additional amount under Section 23 (l-A) at 12 per cent per annum on the market value determined by it commencing from 25th April, 1962 till the date of taking possession of the land. It may be stated that the appellant also filed an appeal _),. questioning enhancement by the Reference Court. The appeal filed by the appellant was consequentially dismissed. It is against this judgment that these two appeals are preferred by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. For the purpose of resolving the first question, we may refer to Section 25, before and after its amendment.

As per the original Section 25, "when the applicant had made a claim to compensation pursuant to any notice given ~ under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 (Emphasis supplied)". We ;1eed not refer to the other two sub-Sections. By Act 68 of 1984, Section 25 was substituted by the new Section 25 which reads as follows: "The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less ·-i than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. " Construing the new Section 25, this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, [2000] 7 SCC Page 756 observed thus: "Section 25 before its substitution by Act 68 of 1984, mandated the court not to award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed by the landowners and not to be less than the amount awarded by the ~ Collector. This very clearly limits awarding of compensation within the amount claimed.

On the facts of the present case it is not in dispute that the award itself was given on 27-12-1977 and even proceeding pursuant to referring order, was concluded on 28-2-1981, i. e. , much prior to the aforesaid amending Act. Thus, on the facts of this case, it is unamended Section 25 to be applicable and not the amended section. In view of this, the peripheral limitation on the court awarding the compensation, would equally apply to the High )- Court exercising its power as the first appellate court. " It was then emphasized in paragraph 9 that the enhancement by the G. D. A. v. ANOOP SINGH [P. VENKATARAMA REDD! , J. ) 527 High Court could only be to the extent the landowners claimed. As in the above case, in the instant case too, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court earlier to the effective date of substitution of Section 25.

Hence, the limitation on the power of the Court to award compensation as enjoined by the pre-amended Section would be attracted. However, there is a fonnidable impediment for the appellant to take shelter under the pre-existing Section 25. On a petition filed by the claimant, the application dated JI. 7. 1967 wherein compensation was claimed at Rs. 20 per square yard was allowed to be amended by an order of the Reference Court passed in the year 1983. It is to be noted that by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act.

In the light of this provision, the High Court rightly held that there is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment. Th