- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Br Project, Davangere And Others v. Krishna Naik (Dead) By Lrs. .
Factual and Procedural Background
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the State of Karnataka by a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14-12-1972. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Dissatisfied landowners sought a reference under Section 18, and on 24-08-1979 the Additional Civil Judge, Davangere, enhanced the compensation. The claimants appealed, and on 20-11-1986 the Additional District Judge, Chitradurga, further increased the compensation and extended to them the benefits of Section 23(1-A) (enhanced solatium and interest). A second appeal by the State was dismissed by the High Court on 29-06-1987. The State of Karnataka thereafter filed the present appeals, restricted solely to the grant of benefits under Section 23(1-A).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in acquisition proceedings initiated before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, the claimants were entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest provided by the amended Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant — State of Karnataka
- Did not contest the quantum of enhanced compensation but challenged the award of benefits under Section 23(1-A).
- Relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593 to contend that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is unavailable when acquisition proceedings were initiated prior to the amending Act, unless the case falls within clauses (a) or (b) of Section 30(1) of the amending Act.
- Submitted that the present acquisition began in 1972 and therefore did not meet the statutory predicates of Section 30(1)(a) or (b).
Respondents — Claimants
The opinion records no appearance or arguments on behalf of the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 5 SCC 593 | The benefit of Section 23(1-A) is confined to cases falling within Section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the amending Act when acquisition proceedings had begun before the amendment. | Formed the primary basis for denying the claimants the enhanced solatium and interest, as their case did not satisfy Section 30(1)(a) or (b). |
| Union of India v. Zora Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 673 | Earlier view that Section 23(1-A) applied to all references pending on 24-09-1984, regardless of the Collector’s award date. | Cited only to note that Zora Singh was overruled by K.S. Paripoornan and therefore could not assist the claimants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court adopted the ratio of the Constitution Bench in K.S. Paripoornan, underscoring that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is payable in pre-amendment acquisitions only when the case falls within Section 30(1)(a) or (b) of the amending Act. On the undisputed facts, the acquisition in question commenced in 1972 and did not satisfy either clause. Consequently, the lower appellate courts erred in granting the additional statutory benefits. The Court therefore confined its intervention to withdrawing the benefit under Section 23(1-A), leaving untouched the enhanced compensation amounts.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed to the Limited Extent — The claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reiterates and applies the binding precedent of K.S. Paripoornan, reinforcing the limited temporal reach of Section 23(1-A) benefits and offering no new doctrinal expansion. Its direct effect is to reduce the monetary award to the claimants to the extent of the disallowed statutory additions.
Order
1. Substitution allowed.
2. The issue in these appeals is rather limited in its nature and scope.
3. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, were the claimants entitled to the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest under the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act?
4. The learned Additional District Judge, has, while disposing of the appeal filed by the claimants, answered the question in the affirmative vide judgment and order dated 25-11-1986. Second appeal against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 29-6-1987.
5. It transpires from a perusal of the record that in land acquisition proceedings which had commenced by the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Karnataka Government Gazette, dated 14-12-1972, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The dissatisfied claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was heard by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Davangere. By its judgment and order dated 24-8-1979 the amount of compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court. The claimants were still not satisfied with the extent of enhancement and filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Chitradurga vide judgment and order dated 20-11-1986, those appeals were allowed and in modification of the judgment and decree made by the Reference Court, the rate of compensation was further enhanced besides additional benefit was also directed to be given to the claimants in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as amended.
6. Mr M. Veerappa, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka submits that he is not questioning the issue of enhancement of compensation for the land but is putting in issue the grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.S Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593 the benefit of Section 23(1-A) is not available insofar as the claimants are concerned because the acquisition proceedings in the instant case had been initiated much prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act. Since the Reference Court itself decided the reference on 24-8-1979, in K.S Paripoornan case (1994) 5 SCC 593 while overruling the judgment of the Court in Union of India v. Zora Singh (1992) 1 SCC 673 the Constitution Bench opined:
“80. … It must be concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to date of commencement of the amending Act the payment of the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. Zora Singh (1992) 1 SCC 673 insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the Reference Court on 24-9-1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.”
The observations of the Constitution Bench lend support to the submission of Mr Veerappa.
7. On the admitted facts of the case, the claimant's case does not fall under Section 30(1), clauses (a) and (b) of the amending Act and, therefore, the benefit under Section 23(1-A) could not be granted to the claimants. Consequently, these appeals succeed to that limited extent and it is held that the claimants were not entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
8. These appeals, therefore, succeed to that limited extent and are allowed. Since, the respondent, despite service, is not present, there shall be no order as to costs.
Alert