TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Scope of Additional Payment under Land Acquisition Act Narrowed by Majority Decision (1-A)</h1> <h3>KS. PARIPOORNAN Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> The majority held that the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is restricted to matters referred to ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.3. Retrospective application of the amended provisions.4. Jurisdiction and power of the Collector and the Court.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894The core issue was whether the benefit of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be granted only in proceedings referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, or in all proceedings pending before the Courts on 24-9-1984. The majority held that the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. The dissenting opinion argued that Section 23(1-A) should apply to all cases pending before the reference Court on 24-9-1984.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984Section 30(1) was analyzed to determine its applicability to pending acquisition proceedings. The majority interpreted that Section 30(1) deals exclusively with the power and jurisdiction of the Collector and does not affect the powers of the reference Court under Section 23. The dissenting opinion emphasized that Section 30(1) extends the benefit of Section 23(1-A) to cases where proceedings were pending before the Collector on 30-4-1982 and no award was made before that date, as well as to proceedings commenced after 30-4-1982.Issue 3: Retrospective Application of the Amended ProvisionsThe majority concluded that Section 23(1-A) of the principal Act and Section 30(1) of the amending Act should not be applied retrospectively to acquisition proceedings initiated before the enactment of the amending Act, except as specifically provided in Section 30(1). The dissenting opinion argued that Section 23(1-A) should be applied to all pending cases, as it is not retrospective merely because it affects existing rights or draws from antecedent facts.Issue 4: Jurisdiction and Power of the Collector and the CourtThe majority held that the reference Court under Section 23 is not inhibited from giving the benefit of Section 23(1-A) in proceedings pending before it on 24-9-1984. However, neither the reference Court nor the appellate Courts can grant the benefit of Section 23(1-A) in proceedings where the reference Court made its award prior to 24-9-1984. The dissenting opinion emphasized that Section 30(1) should not restrict the power of the reference Court under Section 23, and the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) should be payable by the Collector as well.Conclusion:The majority concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. The dissenting opinion argued for a broader application, including all pending cases before the reference Court on 24-9-1984.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
