9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act: Procedural or Substantive? 2. Applicability of Amended Section 25 to Pre-Amendment Awards. 3. Correctness of the Judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti's Case. 4. Appropriateness of Interference with the High Court's Judgment. 5. Validity of Unamended Section 25 under Article 32. Summary: 1. Nature of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act: Procedural or Substantive? The Supreme Court held that Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act is substantive in nature. The provision unequivocally limits the power of the Court on a reference being made to award compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants and less than the amount awarded by the Collector. The Court rejected the argument that the claim made by the lawyer without the claimants' authority should not be considered a claim by the claimants. 2. Applicability of Amended Section 25 to Pre-Amendment Awards The Court concluded that a substantive provision cannot be retrospective unless explicitly stated. The amended Section 25 does not indicate any retrospective effect and thus applies only to acquisitions made after 24.9.84. Therefore, the case in hand, where the award was made prior to the amendment, would be governed by the unamended provisions of Section 25. 3. Correctness of the Judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti's Case The Court found that the reliance on Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti's case was misplaced as it dealt with Section 30(2), which has no relevance to Section 25. Consequently, the enunciation of law in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti's case was not correct. 4. Appropriateness of Interference with the High Court's Judgment The Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the claimants as per the unamended Section 25. The principle from Taherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad, which allows non-interference unless substantial injustice is shown, was not applicable here. The statutory rigour of Section 25 was clear and unambiguous, and thus, the High Court's judgment was set aside. 5. Validity of Unamended Section 25 under Article 32 The Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of the unamended Section 25, as it no longer subsisted since the amendment on 24.9.84. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was set aside. The claimants were entitled to compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per acre, as claimed pursuant to the notice u/s 9. The writ petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.
|
