Supreme Court Allows Appellant Improvement Trust in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Additional Amount Dispute. Additional Amount Under Section 23(1A) Denied to Respondents Because Collector's Award Dated September 10, 1979 and Notification Under Section 4(1) Dated January 28, 1978 Preceded the 1984 Amendment.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court of India was filed by the Improvement Trust, Sangrur against Gurjit Singh Sandhu and others. The dispute arose in the context of land acquisition proceedings where a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on January 28, 1978, and the Collector's award was made on September 10, 1979. The respondents claimed entitlement to an additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was inserted by Act 68 of 1984. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the respondents were entitled to this additional amount. The Court noted that certain respondents had been served but did not appear, and proceeded to address the core legal controversy. The Court observed that the Collector's award was dated September 10, 1979, and the notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978. Given these dates, the Court concluded that the respondents were not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of denying the additional amount, and no costs were awarded. The judgment thus clarified that the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not payable when the Collector's award predates the amendment by Act 68 of 1984, as evidenced by the award being made on September 10, 1979.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Additional Amount under Section 23(1A) - Section 23(1A), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The respondents claimed additional amount under Section 23(1A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The Collector's award was dated September 10, 1979, and notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978. The Supreme Court held that under these circumstances, the respondents were not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act, and allowed the appeal to that extent. (Para 1)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 when the Collector's award was made on September 10, 1979 and the notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed to the extent that respondents were held not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No costs were awarded.

Law Points

  • Additional amount under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894 is not payable when Collector's award was made on September 10
  • 1979 and notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28
  • 1978.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1996 LawText (SC) (01) 93

1996-01-15

K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik

JT 1996 (2) 111, 1996 SCALE (1) 815

K.R.R. Pillai

Improvement Trust, Sangrur

Gurjit Singh Sandhu & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order granting additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Remedy Sought

Appellant Improvement Trust sought to set aside the entitlement of respondents to additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Filing Reason

The respondents were held entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) by a lower authority; the appellant challenged that entitlement because the Collector's award was made before the 1984 amendment.

Issues

Whether respondents are entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when Collector's award was made on September 10, 1979 and notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant contended that respondents were not entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) because Collector's award was dated September 10, 1979 and notification under Section 4(1) was January 28, 1978. Respondents' claim was based on Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984.

Ratio Decidendi

The additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not payable when the Collector's award is dated September 10, 1979 and the Section 4(1) notification is dated January 28, 1978.

Judgment Excerpts

The controversy is whether the respondents are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The Collector’s award is dated September 10, 1979 while the notification under Section 4(1) was published on January 28, 1978. Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

Procedural History

Leave granted by the Supreme Court. Notice sent to respondents on March 29, 1994; second respondent served on March 31, 1994; Mr. K.R.R. Pillai appeared for some respondents; other respondents deemed served but did not appear. The appeal was heard on the issue of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 23(1A), Section 4(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Land Title Dispute Where Lower Courts Relied on Revenue Entry Correction. Revenue Entries Do Not Create or Extinguish Title and Without the Settlement Officer's Order or Other Title Documents, Plaintiffs' Suit for...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Reduction of Superannuation Age from 60 to 58 for Employees of Government Mining Corporation. State as Sole Shareholder Can Amend Service Rules Unilaterally Without Employee Consent.