1989 (11) TMI 307 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition Act: Pre-1984 Cases Eligible for Higher Solatium

UOI. Versus FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA

The Court held that the benefit of higher solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 should also be available to cases where ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for higher solatium.2. Applicability of Section 23(1A) for additional compensation.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 23(2) for Higher SolatiumThe primary question was whether Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, providing for higher solatium, applies to awards made after 24 September 1984, even if the acquisition proceedings commenced before that date. The Court noted that Section 23(2) has limited retrospectivity through transitional provisions u/s 30(2). The Court referenced previous judgments, including Kamalajammaniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, which clarified that higher solatium applies only to awards made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984. However, the Court found that excluding cases like the present one from the benefit of higher solatium would lead to anomalies and potential constitutional issues under Article 14. Therefore, the Court held that the benefit of higher solatium should also be available to the present case, affirming the High Court's decision to grant 30% solatium.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 23(1A) for Additional CompensationThe second issue was whether the claimant is entitled to additional compensation u/s 23(1A). Section 23(1A) mandates an additional amount at 12% per annum on the market value of the land from the date of notification u/s 4(1) to the date of the award or possession. The Court examined the transitional provisions u/s 30(1)(a) and (b), which apply Section 23(1A) to acquisition proceedings pending as of 30 April 1982 or commenced after that date. Since the acquisition in this case commenced on 26 October 1967 and the award was made on 5 March 1969, the proceedings were not pending before the Collector as of 30 April 1982. Therefore, Section 30(1)(a) and (b) did not apply, and the claimant was not entitled to additional compensation u/s 23(1A).Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court was modified to delete the compensation awarded u/s 23(1A), while the rest of the judgment and decree were kept undisturbed. No order as to costs was made.